Federal Register Vol. 80, No.137,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 137 (July 17, 2015)

Page Range42373-42705
FR Document

80_FR_137
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 42397 - Performance Specification 18-Performance Specifications and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Chloride Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary SourcesPDF
80 FR 42397 - Thiabendazole; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency ExemptionsPDF
80 FR 42462 - Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various CommoditiesPDF
80 FR 42486 - Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Plan From Burlington, North Dakota Through Minot, North DakotaPDF
80 FR 42491 - Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's Update of Two Chapters in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
80 FR 42490 - Application for Presidential Permit; ITC Lake Erie Connector ProjectPDF
80 FR 42489 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive LicensePDF
80 FR 42488 - Annual Notice of Interest Rates of Federal Student Loans Made Under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program on or After July 1, 2013PDF
80 FR 42558 - UniStar Nuclear Energy Combined License Application for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3PDF
80 FR 42509 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 42554 - Tennessee Valley Authority, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1PDF
80 FR 42434 - Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee: Notice of Open Meetings and WebinarsPDF
80 FR 42612 - Renewal of the Charter of the Federal Advisory Committee on InsurancePDF
80 FR 42611 - Proposed Collection of Information: States Where Licensed for SuretyPDF
80 FR 42497 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 42497 - Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 42529 - Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Area (WPA) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Lease Sale 246 (WPA Sale 246); MMAA104000PDF
80 FR 42550 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 42400 - Distillates, (Fischer-Tropsch), Heavy, C18PDF
80 FR 42610 - Proposed Renewal; Comment Request; Anti-Money Laundering Programs for Precious Metals, Precious Stones, or JewelsPDF
80 FR 42492 - Request for Nominations for the 2016 Clean Air Excellence Awards ProgramPDF
80 FR 42607 - Proposed Renewal Without Change; Comment Request; Customer Identification Programs for Various Financial InstitutionsPDF
80 FR 42609 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary InstrumentsPDF
80 FR 42477 - Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013PDF
80 FR 42478 - Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014PDF
80 FR 42385 - Safety Zone; Big Foot TLP, Walker Ridge 29, Outer Continental Shelf on the Gulf of MexicoPDF
80 FR 42509 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and BudgetPDF
80 FR 42611 - Proposed Collection of Information: Collateral Security Resolution and Collateral Pledge and Security AgreementPDF
80 FR 42423 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitats of the South Atlantic Region; Amendment 8PDF
80 FR 42510 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and BudgetPDF
80 FR 42388 - Safety Zones and Regulated Navigation Area; Shell Arctic Drilling/Exploration Vessels and Associated Voluntary First Amendment Area, Puget Sound, WA, ExtensionPDF
80 FR 42388 - Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone-Chicago Air and Water ShowPDF
80 FR 42521 - Oklahoma; Amendment No. 9 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
80 FR 42524 - Oklahoma; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
80 FR 42601 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; William RobertsonPDF
80 FR 42521 - Texas; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
80 FR 42517 - Texas; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
80 FR 42467 - Oral Rabies Vaccine Trial; Availability of a Supplemental Environmental AssessmentPDF
80 FR 42522 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 42535 - Gulf of Mexico, Outer Continental Shelf, Western Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 246PDF
80 FR 42517 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 42483 - Procurement List; Additions And DeletionsPDF
80 FR 42481 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and DeletionsPDF
80 FR 42491 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 42521 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 42470 - National School Lunch, Special Milk, and School Breakfast Programs, National Average Payments/Maximum Reimbursement RatesPDF
80 FR 42473 - Food Distribution Program: Value of Donated Foods From July 1, 2015 Through June 30, 2016PDF
80 FR 42476 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Export License Services-Transfer of License Ownership, Request for a Duplicate LicensePDF
80 FR 42474 - Child and Adult Care Food Program: National Average Payment Rates, Day Care Home Food Service Payment Rates, and Administrative Reimbursement Rates for Sponsoring Organizations of Day Care Homes for the Period, July 1, 2015 Through June 30, 2016PDF
80 FR 42508 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 42508 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 42552 - Atomic Safety And Licensing Board; Before Administrative Judges: Michael M. Gibson, Chair, Dr. Richard E. Wardwell, Brian K. Hajek, Alan S. Rosenthal (Special Assistant to the Board); In the Matter of Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (License Renewal for the In Situ Leach Facility, Crawford, Nebraska)PDF
80 FR 42476 - Forest Resource Coordinating Committee; MeetingsPDF
80 FR 42480 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
80 FR 42479 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 42496 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 42496 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10472 Gold Canyon Bank, Gold Canyon, ArizonaPDF
80 FR 42470 - Information Collection; Measurement Service (MS) RecordsPDF
80 FR 42469 - Notice of Intent To Request Renewal of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
80 FR 42560 - Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee; Cancellation of Upcoming MeetingPDF
80 FR 42484 - U.S. Air Force Partially Patent LicensePDF
80 FR 42465 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revisions to the Regulations for PetitionsPDF
80 FR 42493 - Waiver of Sunshine Period Prohibition for Agenda Item on Thursday, July 16, 2015 Open MeetingPDF
80 FR 42571 - Horace Mann Life Insurance Company, et al; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 42606 - Iowa Pacific Holdings, LLC and Permian Basin Railways-Continuance in Control Exemption-Piedmont Railway LLCPDF
80 FR 42605 - Piedmont Railway LLC-Lease and Operation Exemption-North Carolina Department of TransportationPDF
80 FR 42606 - Notice of Geographic Targeting OrderPDF
80 FR 42464 - International Fisheries; Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; Fishing Effort Limits in Purse Seine Fisheries for 2015PDF
80 FR 42480 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; “Fee Deficiency Submissions”PDF
80 FR 42602 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on the Route 624 Bridge Replacement Project in VirginiaPDF
80 FR 42486 - Notice of Intent To Conduct Restoration Planning and To Prepare a Draft Damage Assessment Restoration Plan Environmental Assessment for the Omega 707 Air Tanker Crash of May 18, 2011 at Mugu Lagoon, Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu, CAPDF
80 FR 42467 - Notice of Public Information Collection, Request for Comment on the Continued Use of the Partner Information Form (0412-0577) in Compliance With the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995PDF
80 FR 42546 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Previously Approved Collection COPS Extension Request FormPDF
80 FR 42546 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision and Extension of a Currently Approved Collection; Department of Justice Equitable Sharing Agreement and CertificationPDF
80 FR 42381 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of Acetyl Fentanyl Into Schedule IPDF
80 FR 42540 - Proposed Aggregate Production Quotas for Schedule I and II Controlled Substances and Assessment of Annual Needs for the List I Chemicals Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine for 2016PDF
80 FR 42505 - Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 42502 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Questions and Answers Regarding the Labeling of Nonprescription Human Drug Products Marketed Without an Approved Application as Required by the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection ActPDF
80 FR 42501 - Testicular Toxicity: Evaluation During Drug Development; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 42503 - Public Meeting on Patient-Focused Drug Development for Huntington's and Parkinson's DiseasesPDF
80 FR 42551 - Meetings of Humanities PanelPDF
80 FR 42500 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
80 FR 42499 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
80 FR 42506 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 42600 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 42507 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 42538 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Sematech, Inc. d/b/a International SematechPDF
80 FR 42538 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Open Platform for NFV Project, Inc.PDF
80 FR 42538 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc.PDF
80 FR 42539 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-UHD Alliance, Inc., in Its Capacity as a Standards Development OrganizationPDF
80 FR 42537 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-UHD Alliance, Inc.PDF
80 FR 42538 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993; Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium, Inc.PDF
80 FR 42547 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Records of Preshift and Onshift Inspections of Slope and Shaft Areas of Slope and Shaft Sinking Operations at Coal MinesPDF
80 FR 42549 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Petitions for Modification of Mandatory Safety StandardsPDF
80 FR 42548 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety StandardsPDF
80 FR 42537 - Certain Wireless Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablets III; Commission Determination To Affirm an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation Based on a Settlement AgreementPDF
80 FR 42485 - Inland Waterways Users Board Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 42524 - Notice of Continued Suspension of Imports of Zimbabwe Elephant Trophies Taken On or After April 4, 2014PDF
80 FR 42575 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, To Amend NYSE Rule 13 and Related Rules Governing Order Types and ModifiersPDF
80 FR 42593 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, To Amend NYSEMKT Rule 13-Equities and Related Rules Governing Order Types and ModifiersPDF
80 FR 42567 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees SchedulePDF
80 FR 42392 - Revisions to the Requirements for Authority To Manufacture and Distribute Postage Evidencing SystemsPDF
80 FR 42560 - Addition of Competitive International Merchandise Return Service Agreements With Foreign Postal Operators to Competitive Product ListPDF
80 FR 42560 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
80 FR 42439 - Property Transferred in Connection With the Performance of ServicesPDF
80 FR 42561 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
80 FR 42404 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
80 FR 42545 - Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: Navinta LLCPDF
80 FR 42515 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Integrated Public Alert and Warning Systems (IPAWS) Memorandum of Agreement ApplicationsPDF
80 FR 42545 - Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: Mallinckrodt, LLCPDF
80 FR 42515 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 42496 - Notice of Request for Additional InformationPDF
80 FR 42539 - Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: Siegfried USA, LLCPDF
80 FR 42512 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 42545 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Siegfried USA, LLCPDF
80 FR 42520 - Oklahoma; Amendment No. 10 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
80 FR 42517 - Kentucky; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
80 FR 42544 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Meda Pharmaceuticals, Inc.PDF
80 FR 42520 - Texas; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
80 FR 42520 - Wyoming; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 42559 - Anticipated Transients That Could Develop Into More Serious EventsPDF
80 FR 42479 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 42603 - Decision That Nonconforming 2006-2010 BMW M3 Passenger Cars Are Eligible for ImportationPDF
80 FR 42604 - Ford Motor Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
80 FR 42508 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 42436 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace for the following Missouri towns: Chillicothe, MO; Cuba, MO; Farmington, MO; Lamar, MO; Mountain View, MO; Nevada, MO; and Poplar Bluff, MOPDF
80 FR 42597 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Adopting a Principles-Based Approach To Prohibit the Misuse of Material Nonpublic Information by Specialists and e-Specialists by Deleting Rule 927.3NY and Section (f) of Rule 927.5NYPDF
80 FR 42493 - FCC To Hold Open Commission Meeting Thursday, July 16, 2015PDF
80 FR 42495 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
80 FR 42492 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
80 FR 42590 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Section II of the Pricing SchedulePDF
80 FR 42579 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Allowing the Listing of Options Overlying Portfolio Depositary Receipts and Index Fund Shares That Are Listed Pursuant to Generic Listing Standards on Equities Exchanges for Series of ETFs Based on International or Global Indexes Under Which a Comprehensive Surveillance Sharing Agreement Is Not RequiredPDF
80 FR 42587 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Allowing the Listing of Options Overlying Portfolio Depositary Receipts and Index Fund Shares That are Listed Pursuant to Generic Listing Standards on Equities Exchanges for Series of ETFs Based on International or Global Indexes Under Which a Comprehensive Surveillance Sharing Agreement Is Not RequiredPDF
80 FR 42561 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.PDF
80 FR 42569 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.PDF
80 FR 42566 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Various References to Rule 1080.08PDF
80 FR 42563 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of EDGX Exchange, Inc.PDF
80 FR 42584 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Adding a Pricing Tier Applicable to Orders of ETP Holders for Tape A, Tape B and Tape C Securities That Are Eligible To Be Routed Away From the ExchangePDF
80 FR 42582 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of EDGA Exchange, Inc.PDF
80 FR 42434 - Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Columbus, Ohio State University Airport, OH, and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Columbus, OHPDF
80 FR 42440 - Regulated Navigation Area; Middle Waterway Superfund Cleanup Site, Commencement Bay; Tacoma, WAPDF
80 FR 42446 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Hampshire; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan RequirementsPDF
80 FR 42393 - Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; Lead Rule RevisionsPDF
80 FR 42443 - Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; Lead Rule RevisionsPDF
80 FR 42459 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Adoption of Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture Coatings and Miscellaneous Metal Parts CoatingsPDF
80 FR 42443 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to the Minor New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Portable FacilitiesPDF
80 FR 42527 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Resource Management Plans for the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs National Conservation Areas; a Draft Amendment to the St. George Field Office Resource Management Plan; and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, UtahPDF
80 FR 42479 - Proposed Amendment to the Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management ProgramPDF
80 FR 42438 - Toys: Determination Regarding Heavy Elements Limits for Unfinished and Untreated WoodPDF
80 FR 42376 - Toys: Determination Regarding Heavy Elements Limits for Unfinished and Untreated WoodPDF
80 FR 42535 - Stream Protection Rule; Draft Environmental Impact StatementPDF
80 FR 42670 - Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support, Connect America FundPDF
80 FR 42524 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
80 FR 42408 - Health Resources Priority and Allocations System (HRPAS)PDF
80 FR 42614 - Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Commercial Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Water-Heating EquipmentPDF
80 FR 42373 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF

Issue

80 137 Friday, July 17, 2015 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42497-42499 2015-17635 Meetings: Patient Safety Learning Laboratories -- Innovative Design and Development to Improve Healthcare Delivery Systems, 42497 2015-17633 Agency Agency for International Development NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Continued Use of the Partner Information Form, 42467 2015-17567 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Economic Research Service

See

Farm Service Agency

See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Forest Service

AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Partially Exclusive Patent Licenses: Sky Tube Live, LLC, 42484 2015-17582 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Oral Rabies Vaccine Trial, 42467-42469 2015-17608 Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Membership Changes under National Cooperative Research and Production Act: Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc., 42538 2015-17546 Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium, Inc., 42538-42539 2015-17543 Open Platform for NFV Project, Inc., 42538 2015-17547 Sematech, Inc., 42538 2015-17548 UHD Alliance, Inc., 42537-42538 2015-17544 UHD Alliance, Inc., as a Standards Development Organization, 42539 2015-17545 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42499-42501 2015-17553 2015-17554 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones and Regulated Navigation Areas: Shell Arctic Drilling/Exploration Vessels and Associated Voluntary First Amendment Area, Puget Sound, WA; Extensions, 42388-42392 2015-17615 Safety Zones: Big Foot TLP, Walker Ridge 29, Outer Continental Shelf on the Gulf of Mexico, 42385-42388 2015-17620 Chicago Air and Water Show; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone, 42388 2015-17614 PROPOSED RULES Regulated Navigation Areas: Middle Waterway Superfund Cleanup Site, Commencement Bay; Tacoma, WA, 42440-42443 2015-17481 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42509-42512 2015-17616 2015-17619 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 42481-42484 2015-17603 2015-17604 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission RULES Toys: Determination Regarding Heavy Elements Limits for Unfinished and Untreated Wood, 42376-42381 2015-17413 PROPOSED RULES Toys: Determination Regarding Heavy Elements Limits for Unfinished and Untreated Wood, 42438 2015-17414 Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

See

Engineers Corps

See

Navy Department

Drug Drug Enforcement Administration RULES Schedules of Controlled Substances: Acetyl Fentanyl; Temporary Placement into Schedule I, 42381-42385 2015-17563 NOTICES Importers of Controlled Substances; Registrations: Meda Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Decatur, IL, 42544-42545 2015-17514 Siegfried USA, LLC, Pennsville, NJ, 42545-42546 2015-17518 Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Registrations: Mallinckrodt, LLC, St. Louis, MO, 42545 2015-17523 Navinta, LLC, Ewing, NJ, 42545 2015-17525 Siegfried USA, LLC, Pennsville, NJ, 42539 2015-17520 Proposed Aggregate Production Quotas for Schedule I and II Controlled Substances: Assessment of Annual Needs for the List I Chemicals Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine for 2016, 42540-42544 2015-17561 Economic Research Economic Research Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42469-42470 2015-17585 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Federal Student Loan Interest Rates: William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, 42488-42489 2015-17653 Energy Department Energy Department RULES Energy Conservation Programs: Commercial Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Water-Heating Equipment, 42614-42668 2015-16927 PROPOSED RULES Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee; Meetings and Webinars, 42434 2015-17642 NOTICES Applications for Presidential Permits: ITC Lake Erie Connector Project, 42490-42491 2015-17655 Exclusive Licenses: CogniTek Management Systems, Inc., 42489-42490 2015-17654 Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Plan; Burlington, ND through Minot, ND, 42486 2015-17670 Meetings: Inland Waterways Users Board, 42485-42486 2015-17538 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Indiana; Lead Rule Revisions, 42393-42396 2015-17474 Exemptions from the Requirement of a Tolerance: Distillates, (Fischer-Tropsch), heavy, C18-C50, branched, cyclic and linear, 42400-42404 2015-17630 Performance Specifications and Test Procedures: Specification 18 -- Hydrogen Chloride Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources, 42397 C1--2015--16385 Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions: Thiabendazole, 42397-42400 2015-17681 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Indiana; Lead Rule Revisions, 42443 2015-17473 Maryland; Adoption of Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture Coatings and Miscellaneous Metal Parts Coatings, 42459-42462 2015-17470 New Hampshire; Infrastructure Requirements, 42446-42459 2015-17475 Texas; Revisions to the Minor New Source Review for Portable Facilities, 42443-42446 2015-17468 Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities, 42462-42464 2015-17674 NOTICES Air Pollution Control Cost Manual Update, 42491 2015-17656 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc., 42491 2015-17602 Requests for Nominations: Clean Air Excellence Awards Program, 42492 2015-17626 Farm Service Farm Service Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Measurement Service Records, 42470 2015-17586 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 42373-42376 2015-16580 PROPOSED RULES Amendment of Class D Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace and Amendment of Class E Airspace: Columbus, Ohio State University Airport, OH; Columbus OH, 42434-42436 2015-17487 Amendment of Class E Airspace: The Following Missouri Towns: Chillicothe, MO; Cuba, MO; Farmington, MO; Lamar, MO; Mountain View, MO; Nevada, MO; and Poplar Bluff, MO, 42436-42438 2015-17501 NOTICES Petitions for Exemption; Summaries: William Robertson, 42601-42602 2015-17611 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support, Connect America Fund, 42670-42705 2015-17289 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42492-42493, 42495-42496 2015-17497 2015-17498 Meetings: Federal Communications Commission, 42493-42495 2015-17499 Federal Communications Commission; Waiver of Sunshine Period Prohibition for Agenda Item, 42493 2015-17579 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receivership: 10472 Gold Canyon Bank, Gold Canyon, AZ, 42496 2015-17587 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Suspension of Community Eligibility, 42404-42408 2015-17526 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Integrated Public Alert and Warning Systems Memorandum of Agreement Applications, 42515 2015-17524 Final Flood Hazard Determinations, 42521-42522 2015-17601 Flood Hazard Determinations; Changes, 42512-42517 2015-17519 2015-17522 Major Disasters Declarations: Kentucky; Amendment 1, 42517 2015-17516 Oklahoma; Amendment 10, 42520 2015-17517 Oklahoma; Amendment 8, 42524 2015-17612 Oklahoma; Amendment 9, 42521 2015-17613 Texas; Amendment 5, 42521 2015-17610 Texas; Amendment 6, 42517 2015-17609 Texas; Amendment 7, 42520 2015-17513 Wyoming, 42520-42521 2015-17512 Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations, 42517-42519, 42522-42524 2015-17605 2015-17607 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Final Federal Agency Actions on the Route 624 Bridge Replacement Project in Virginia, 42602-42603 2015-17569 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Requests for Additional Information, 42496 2015-17521 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 42496-42497 2015-17589 Financial Crimes Financial Crimes Enforcement Network NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Anti-Money Laundering Programs for Precious Metals, Precious Stones, or Jewels, 42610-42611 2015-17627 Customer Identification Programs for Various Financial Institutions, 42607-42609 2015-17625 Report of International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments, 42609-42610 2015-17624 Geographic Targeting Oders, 42606-42607 2015-17572 Fiscal Fiscal Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Collateral Security Resolution and Collateral Pledge and Security Agreement, 42611-42612 2015-17618 States Where Licensed for Surety, 42611 2015-17636 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Revisions to the Regulations for Petitions, 42465-42466 2015-17580 NOTICES Import Suspensions: Zimbabwe Elephant Trophies Taken on or after April 4, 2014, 42524-42527 2015-17537 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Guidance for Industry on Questions and Answers Regarding the Labeling of Nonprescription Human Drug Products Marketed Without an Approved Application as Required by the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act, 42502-42503 2015-17558 Guidance for Industry and Staff: Testicular Toxicity: Evaluation During Drug Development, 42501-42502 2015-17557 Meetings: Patient-Focused Drug Development for Huntington's and Parkinson's Diseases, 42503-42505 2015-17556 Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, 42505-42506 2015-17559 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Child and Adult Care Food Program: National Average Payment Rates, Day Care Home Food Service Payment Rates, and Administrative Reimbursement Rates for Sponsoring Organizations of Day Care Homes, 42474-42476 2015-17597 Food Distribution Program: Value of Donated Foods, 42473-42474 2015-17599 National School Lunch, Special Milk, and School Breakfast Programs: National Average Payments/Maximum Reimbursement Rates, 42470-42473 2015-17600 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Forest Resource Coordinating Committee, 42476 2015-17592 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

RULES Health Resources Priority and Allocations System, 42408-42423 2015-17047
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42506-42508 2015-17550 2015-17552 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Federal Properties Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 42524 2015-17270 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Export License Services, Transfer of License Ownership, Request for a Duplicate License, 42476-42477 2015-17598 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

See

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Property Transferred in Connection with the Performance of Services, 42439-42440 2015-17530 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea, 42477-42478 2015-17622 Utility Scale Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China, 42478 2015-17621 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Wireless Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablets III, 42537 2015-17539 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

See

Drug Enforcement Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Community Oriented Policing Services Extension Request Form, 42546 2015-17566 Equitable Sharing Agreement and Certification, 42546-42547 2015-17565
Labor Department Labor Department See

Mine Safety and Health Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Draft Resource Management Plans; Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs National Conservation Areas; Draft Amendment to the St. George Field Office Resource Management Plan, 42527-42529 2015-17466 Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Petitions for Modification of Mandatory Safety Standards, 42549-42550 2015-17541 Records of Preshift and Onshift Inspections of Slope and Shaft Areas of Slope and Shaft Sinking Operations at Coal Mines, 42547-42548 2015-17542 Petitions: Mandatory Safety Standards; Modifications, 42548-42549 2015-17540 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Records Schedules, 42550-42551 2015-17631 National Endowment for the Humanities National Endowment for the Humanities NOTICES Meetings: Humanities Panel, 42551-42552 2015-17555 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

National Endowment for the Humanities

National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Importation Eligibility: Nonconforming 2006-2010 BMW M3 Passenger Cars, 42603-42604 2015-17507 Petitions for Inconsequential Noncompliance: Ford Motor Co., 42604-42605 2015-17506 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 42508-42509 2015-17504 2015-17647 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 42508 2015-17595 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 42508 2015-17594 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitats of the South Atlantic Region; Amendment 8, 42423-42433 2015-17617 PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Revisions to the Regulations for Petitions, 42465-42466 2015-17580 International Fisheries: Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; Fishing Effort Limits in Purse Seine Fisheries for 2015, 42464-42465 2015-17571 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42479-42480 2015-17509 Coastal Zone Management Programs: Puerto Rico; Proposed Amendment, 42479 2015-17426 Meetings: New England Fishery Management Council, 42480 2015-17591 North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 42479 2015-17590 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Draft Damage Assessment Restoration Plan for Omega 707 Air Tanker Crash, Mugu Lagoon, Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu, CA, 42486-42488 2015-17568 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hearings: Crow Butte Resources, Inc., 42552-42554 2015-17593 Combined License Applications: UniStar Nuclear Energy; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, 42558-42559 2015-17652 Guidance: Anticipated Transients That Could Develop Into More Serious Events, 42559-42560 2015-17510 License Amendment Applications: Tennessee Valley Authority, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit, 42554-42558 2015-17645 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES Oil and Gas Lease Sales: Gulf of Mexico, Outer Continental Shelf, Western Planning Area, Sale 246, 42535 2015-17606 Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Area, Outer Continental Shelf, Sale 246, 42529-42535 2015-17632 Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Fee Deficiency Submissions, 42480-42481 2015-17570 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Meetings: Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee; Cancellation, 42560 2015-17584 Postal Service Postal Service RULES Requirements for Authority to Manufacture and Distribute Postage Evidencing Systems, 42392-42393 2015-17533 NOTICES Addition of Competitive International Merchandise Return Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators to Competitive Product List, 42560 2015-17532 Product Changes: Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 42560-42561 2015-17527 2015-17528 2015-17529 2015-17531 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Horace Mann Life Insurance Co., et al., 42571-42575 2015-17575 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 42569-42571 2015-17492 BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., 42561-42562 2015-17493 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 42567-42569 2015-17534 EDGA Exchange, Inc., 42582-42584 2015-17488 EDGX Exchange, Inc., 42563-42566 2015-17490 NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC, 42566-42567, 42590-42593 2015-17491 2015-17496 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 42575-42579 2015-17536 NYSE Arca, Inc., 42584-42590 2015-17489 2015-17494 NYSE MKT, LLC, 42579-42582, 42593-42600 2015-17495 2015-17500 2015-17535 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42600-42601 2015-17551 Surface Mining Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office NOTICES Stream Protection Rule: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 42535-42536 2015-17307 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Continuance in Control Exemptions: Iowa Pacific Holdings, LLC and Permian Basin Railways; Piedmont Railway LLC, 42606 2015-17574 Lease and Operation Exemptions: Piedmont Railway LLC; North Carolina Department of Transportation, 42605-42606 2015-17573 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

Treasury Treasury Department See

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

See

Fiscal Service

See

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES Charter Renewals: Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance, 42612 2015-17638
Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Energy Department, 42614-42668 2015-16927 Part III Federal Communications Commission, 42670-42705 2015-17289 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.

80 137 Friday, July 17, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0570; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-094-AD; Amendment 39-18201; AD 2015-14-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes. This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent potential ignition sources within the fuel system, which could result in a fuel tank explosion.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective August 21, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 21, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0570 or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone: 416-375-4000; fax: 416-375-4539; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0570.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 18, 2014 (79 FR 48703).

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-32R2, dated June 27, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes. The MCAI states:

Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the aeroplanes fuel system against fuel tank safety standards * * *. The identified non-compliances were then assessed * * *, to determine if mandatory corrective action is required.

The assessment showed that supplemental maintenance tasks are required to prevent potential ignition sources within the fuel system, which could result in a fuel tank explosion. Revisions have been made to Part 2 “Airworthiness Limitations List” of the DHC-8 Maintenance Program Manuals to introduce the required maintenance tasks.

Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD was issued to clarify the phase-in schedule for tasks FSL-02 and FSL-17.

Revision 2 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to correct the effective date of [Canadian] AD CF-2013-07 [http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:OLDASSET::svPath=/ADFiles/over/dhc-8/,svFileName=CF-2013-07.pdf] referenced in Part III of the Corrective Actions and to clarify the revised phase-in schedules in Part II and Part III of the Corrective Actions.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0570-0002.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 48703, August 18, 2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Changes to This Final Rule

Since the NPRM (79 FR 48703, August 18, 2014) was published, the information in Bombardier Temporary Revision (TR) AWL-110, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual, Product Support Manual PSM 1-8-7, has been merged in Subject 5-FSL of Section 5, “Fuel System Limitations,” of the “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-8-7, Revision 18, dated February 23, 2012. We have removed paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD that referred to Bombardier TR AWL-110, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual, Product Support Manual PSM 1-8-7, and we have redesignated paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD as paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. We have also added new paragraph (g)(5) of this AD to refer to Subject 5-FSL of Section 5, “Fuel System Limitations,” of the “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-8-7, Revision 18, dated February 23, 2012.

We have included a new paragraph (j) in this AD to provide credit for accomplishing the revision to the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier TR AWL-110, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual, Product Support Manual PSM 1-8-7. The subsequent paragraphs have been redesignated accordingly.

Since the NPRM (79 FR 48703, August 18, 2014) was published, we also received Bombardier TR AWL 2-47, dated February 16, 2011, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-82-7, which supersedes Bombardier TR AWL 2-43, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-82-7. We have added paragraph (g)(2) of this AD to refer to Bombardier TR AWL 2-47, dated February 16, 2011, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-82-7, as an appropriate source of service information to accomplish the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

Furthermore, we also received Bombardier TR AWL 3-117, dated February 16, 2011, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-83-7, which supersedes Bombardier TR AWL 3-109, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-83-7. We have added paragraph (g)(4) of this AD to refer to Bombardier TR AWL 3-117, dated February 16, 2011, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-83-7, as an appropriate source of service information to accomplish the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 48703, August 18, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 48703, August 18, 2014).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Bombardier, Inc. has issued the following service information:

• Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 2-43, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-82-7.

• Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 2-47, dated February 16, 2011, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-82-7.

• Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 3-109, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-83-7.

• Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 3-117, dated February 16, 2011, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-83-7.

• Subject 5-FSL of Section 5, “Fuel System Limitations,” of the “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-8-7, Revision 18, dated February 23, 2012.

The service information describes revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 122 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $10,370, or $85 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0570; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-14-03 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18201. Docket No. FAA-2014-0570; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-094-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective August 21, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD affects AD 2008-13-09, Amendment 39-15572 (73 FR 47029, August 13, 2008).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/N) 003 through 624 inclusive, and 626.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent potential ignition sources within the fuel system, which could result in a fuel tank explosion.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include fuel system limitation (FSL) Task Numbers FSL-02, “Detailed Inspection of the Fuel Tank Bonding Jumpers”; and FSL-17, “Functional Check of the Fuel Tank Components and the Plumbing Lines Electrical Bonding”; as specified in the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD. The initial compliance times for accomplishing the tasks are specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD. Doing this revision terminates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD 2008-13-09, Amendment 39-15572 (73 FR 47029, August 13, 2008), for Task Numbers FSL-02 and FSL-17 only.

(1) Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 2-43, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-82-7.

(2) Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 2-47, dated February 16, 2011, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-82-7.

(3) Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 3-109, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-83-7.

(4) Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 3-117, dated February 16, 2011, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-83-7.

(5) Subject 5-FSL of Section 5, “Fuel System Limitations,” of the “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-8-7, Revision 18, dated February 23, 2012.

(h) Phase-in Compliance Times

For airplanes having S/Ns 003 through 624 inclusive, and S/N 626, the initial compliance times are specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable.

(1) For airplanes having S/Ns 003 through 624 inclusive on which the applicable modification summaries (ModSums) specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), and (h)(1)(iii) of this AD have been incorporated before the effective date of this AD: The compliance time for the initial inspection in FSL Task Number FSL-02, “Detailed Inspection of the Fuel Tank Bonding Jumpers”; and the initial functional check in FSL Task Number FSL-17, “Functional Check of the Fuel Tank Components and the Plumbing Lines Electrical Bonding”; is within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. Airplane configurations can be a combination of the configurations specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), and (h)(1)(iii) of this AD.

(i) For airplanes having S/Ns 003 through 624 inclusive: Bombardier ModSum Package 8Q101512, Revision G, dated June 10, 2009; and Bombardier ModSum Package 8Q101865, Revision B, dated May 26, 2008.

(ii) For airplanes having S/Ns 003 through 624 inclusive with auxiliary power unit (APU) option: Bombardier ModSum Package 8Q902144, Revision E, dated June 17, 2009.

(iii) For airplanes having S/Ns 003 through 624 inclusive with a long-range fuel system installed: Bombardier ModSum Package 8Q902091, Revision C, dated December 22, 2006.

(2) For airplanes having S/Ns 003 through 624 inclusive on which the applicable ModSum packages specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), and (h)(1)(iii) of this AD have not been incorporated before the effective date of this AD: The compliance time for the initial inspection in FSL Task Number FSL-02, “Detailed Inspection of the Fuel Tank Bonding Jumpers”; and the initial functional check in FSL Task Number FSL-17, “Functional Check of the Fuel Tank Components and the Plumbing Lines Electrical Bonding”; is before further flight after incorporation of all applicable ModSum packages specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), and (h)(1)(iii) of this AD. Airplane configurations can be a combination of the configurations specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), and (h)(1)(iii) of this AD.

(3) For the airplane having serial number 626: The initial compliance time is at the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(3)(i) or (h)(3)(ii) of this AD.

(i) If Bombardier ModSum Package 8Q902091, Revision C, dated December 22, 2006, has been accomplished before the effective date of this AD: The compliance time for doing the initial inspection specified in FSL Task Number FSL-02, “Detailed Inspection of the Fuel Tank Bonding Jumpers”; and the initial functional check specified in FSL Task Number FSL-17, “Functional Check of the Fuel Tank Components and the Plumbing Lines Electrical Bonding”; is within 6,000 flight hours or within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

(ii) If Bombardier ModSum Package 8Q902091 Revision C, dated December 22, 2006, has not been accomplished before the effective date of this AD: The compliance time for doing the initial inspection in FSL Task Number FSL-02, “Detailed Inspection of the Fuel Tank Bonding Jumpers”; and the initial functional check in FSL Task Number FSL-17, “Functional Check of the Fuel Tank Components and the Plumbing Lines Electrical Bonding”; is before further flight after accomplishment of Bombardier ModSum Package 8Q901091.

(i) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and/or Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, and/or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, and/or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier TR AWL-110, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual, Product Support Manual PSM 1-8-7, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(l) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-32R2, dated June 27, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0570-0002.

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

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 2-43, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-82-7.

(ii) Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 2-47, dated February 16, 2011, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-82-7.

(iii) Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 3-109, dated August 31, 2007, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-83-7.

(iv) Bombardier Temporary Revision AWL 3-117, dated February 16, 2011, to Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-83-7.

(v) Subject 5-FSL of Section 5, “Fuel System Limitations,” of the “Airworthiness Limitations List,” of the Bombardier Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Program Manual, PSM 1-8-7, Revision 18, dated February 23, 2012.

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

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 29, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-16580 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 1251 [Docket No. CPSC-2011-0081] Toys: Determination Regarding Heavy Elements Limits for Unfinished and Untreated Wood AGENCY:

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission,” or “CPSC”) is issuing a direct final rule determining that unfinished and untreated trunk wood does not contain heavy elements that would exceed the limits specified in the Commission's toy standard, ASTM F963-11. Based on this determination, unfinished and untreated wood in toys does not require third party testing for the heavy element limits in ASTM F963.

DATES:

The rule is effective on September 15, 2015, unless we receive a significant adverse comment by August 17, 2015. If we receive a timely significant adverse comment, we will publish notification in the Federal Register, withdrawing this direct final rule before its effective date.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2011-0081, by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.

Written Submissions: Submit written submissions by mail/hand delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to: www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at all, such information should be submitted in writing.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to: www.regulations.gov, and insert the docket number CPSC-2011-0081, into the “Search” box, and follow the prompts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Randy Butturini, Project Manager, Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Hwy, Room 814, Bethesda, MD 20814; 301-504-7562: email; [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background 1. Third Party Testing

Section 14(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, (“CPSA”), as amended by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (“CPSIA”), requires that manufacturers of products subject to a consumer product safety rule or similar rule, ban, standard or regulation enforced by the CPSC must certify that the product complies with all applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). For children's products, certification must be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body. Id. Pub. L. 112-28 (August 12, 2011), directed the CPSC to seek comment on “opportunities to reduce the cost of third party testing requirements consistent with assuring compliance with any applicable consumer product safety rule, ban, standard, or regulation.” In response to Pub. L. 112-28, the Commission published in the Federal Register a Request for Comment (“RFC”). See http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/103251/3ptreduce.pdf. As directed by the Commission, staff submitted a briefing package to the Commission that described opportunities that the Commission could pursue to potentially reduce the third party testing costs consistent with assuring compliance. See http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/129398/reduce3pt.pdf.

In addition to soliciting and reviewing comments as required by Pub. L. 112-28, the Commission published in the Federal Register on April 16, 2013 a Request for Information (“RFI”) on four potential opportunities to reduce testing burdens. See http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-16/pdf/2013-08858.pdf. In February 2014, the Commission also published a notice in the Federal Register of a CPSC workshop on potential ways to reduce third party testing costs through determinations consistent with assuring compliance. See http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-27/pdf/2014-04265.pdf. The workshop was held on April 3, 2014.

As discussed further in this preamble, if the Commission determines that, due to the nature of a particular material, children's products made of that material will comply with CPSC's requirements with a high degree of assurance, manufacturers do not need to have those materials tested by a third party conformity assessment body.

2. CPSC's Toy Standard

Section 106 of the CPSIA states that the provisions of ASTM International (“ASTM”), Consumer Safety Specifications for Toy Safety (“ASTM F963” or “toy standard”), “shall be considered to be consumer product safety standards issued by the Commission under section 9 of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2058).” 1 Thus, toys subject to ASTM F963-11, the current mandatory version of the standard, must be tested by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body and demonstrate compliance with all applicable CPSC requirements for the manufacturer to issue a Children's Product Certificate (“CPC”) before the toys can be entered into commerce.

1 ASTM F963-11 is a consumer product safety standard, except for section 4.2 and Annex 4, or any provision that restates or incorporates an existing mandatory standard or ban promulgated by the Commission or by statute.

The toy standard has numerous requirements. Among them, section 4.3.5 requires that surface coating materials and accessible substrates of toys 2 that can be sucked, mouthed, or ingested, comply with the solubility limits on eight heavy elements. (We refer to these elements as the “ASTM heavy elements.”) One of the eight ASTM heavy elements is lead. The Commission previously determined that certain materials do not exceed lead content limits, and therefore, those materials do not require third party testing when used in children's products (including toys). 16 CFR 1500.91. Thus, CPSC staff focused its work on the remaining seven ASTM heavy elements. The eight ASTM heavy elements and their solubility limits are shown below.

2 ASTM F963-11 contains the following note regarding the scope of the solubility requirement: NOTE 3—For the purposes of this requirement, the following criteria are considered reasonably appropriate for the classification of toys or parts likely to be sucked, mouthed or ingested: (1) All toy parts intended to be mouthed or contact food or drink, components of toys which are cosmetics, and components of writing instruments categorized as toys; (2) Toys intended for children less than 6 years of age, that is, all accessible parts and components where there is a probability that those parts and components may come into contact with the mouth.

3 The method to assess the solubility of a listed element is detailed in section 8.3.2, Method to Dissolve Soluble Matter for Surface Coatings, of ASTM F963-11. Modeling clays included as part of a toy have different solubility limits for several of the elements.

Table 1—Maximum Soluble Migrated Element in Parts-Per-Million for Surface Coatings and Substrates Included as Part of a Toy Element Solubility limit,
  • parts per million,
  • (“ppm”) 3
  • Antimony, (“Sb”) 60 Arsenic, (“As”) 25 Barium, (“Ba”) 1000 Cadmium, (“Cd”) 75 Chromium, (“Cr”) 60 Lead, (“Pb”) 90 Mercury, (“Hg”) 60 Selenium, (“Se”) 500
    3. Possible Determinations Regarding the ASTM Heavy Elements

    For some materials, the concentrations of all the listed heavy elements might always be below their respective solubility limits due to biological, manufacturing, or other constraints. For example, one of the specified elements may be sequestered in a portion of a plant, such as the roots, that is not used in textile manufacturing. Additionally, a manufacturing process step may remove a specified element, if the element is present, from the material being processed. For these materials, compliance with the limits stated in section 4.3.5 of ASTM F963-11 is assured without requiring third party testing because the material is intrinsically compliant.

    The third party testing burden could only be reduced if all heavy elements listed in section 4.3.5 have concentrations below their solubility limits. Because third party conformity assessment bodies typically run one test for all of the ASTM heavy elements, no testing burden reduction would be achieved if any one of the heavy elements requires testing.

    B. Contractor's Research 1. Overview

    CPSC hired a contractor to conduct a literature search to assess whether the Commission potentially could determine that wood and other natural materials do not contain any of the seven specified heavy elements in concentrations above the ASTM F963-11 maximum solubility limits (excluding the eighth element, lead which is already subject to a determination). The contractor researched the following materials:

    • Unfinished and untreated wood (ash, beech, birch, cherry, maple, oak, pine, poplar, and walnut);

    • Bamboo;

    • Beeswax;

    • Undyed and untreated fibers and textiles (cotton, wool, linen, and silk); and

    • Uncoated or coated paper (wood or other cellulosic fiber).

    Staff chose these materials for research because they met two criteria:

    • Materials the Commission previously determined not to contain lead in concentrations above 100 ppm; and

    • Materials more likely to be used in toys subject to the ASTM F963-11 solubility limits.

    The contractor's report is available on the Commission's Web site at: http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Research-and-Statistics/Technical-Reports/Toys/TERAReportASTMElements.pdf. CPSC staff reviewed the contractor's report and prepared a briefing package providing recommendations to the Commission. The staff's briefing package is also available on the Commission's Web site. http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Newsroom/FOIA/CommissionBriefingPackages/2015/DFRandNPRDeterminationsontheASTMElementsUnfinishedWoods%20June302015.pdf.

    In conducting this research, the contractor considered the following factors:

    • The concentrations of the seven heavy elements in the material under study;

    • The presence and concentrations of the elements in the environmental media (e.g., soil, water, air), and in the base materials for the textiles and paper;

    • Whether processing has the potential to introduce any of the seven heavy elements into the material under study; and

    • The potential for contamination after production, such as through packaging.

    The contractor examined secondary sources and reviewed articles to identify the available data regarding the elements' concentrations in the materials listed above. The contractor summarized the relevant data on bioavailability and presence/concentrations in environmental media (i.e., soil, air, and water) from the most recent Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (“ATSDR”) 4 toxicological profile, supplemented with more recent authoritative reviews. The contractor conducted a literature search for data on concentrations of the chemical elements in each of the specific materials. Potentially relevant papers for information on concentrations of chemical elements in each product were identified and reviewed. The contractor used the references from reviewed articles to identify other articles to examine and used the references in those articles to find other sources recursively, to uncover relevant cited references.5 The literature screening was to examine whether there is a potential for an ASTM heavy element to be present in the natural material at levels above its solubility limit. When the contractor determined there was sufficient information to indicate the potential for an ASTM heavy element to be present, the contractor stopped that particular line of inquiry and reported the results.

    4 The congressionally mandated Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry produces toxicological profiles for hazardous substances found at National Priorities List sites.

    5 This method is often referred to as “tree searching.”

    As discussed in the staff's briefing package, the contractor's report does not support a Commission determination for any material other than unfinished and untreated wood. The literature reviewed by the contractor did not provide sufficient information to determine that any of the reviewed materials, other than unfinished and untreated wood, do not contain the heavy elements in concentrations above the limits stated in the toy standard.

    2. Findings Regarding Wood

    Of the materials reviewed, the contractor identified the most studies for wood. Although the contractor could not examine every study concerning wood, the contractor reported that the studies examined constitute a representative sample of studies. The contractor studied measurements taken from trees in natural settings, samples from trees grown on contaminated soils, hydroponically grown 6 seedlings, experimental studies with seedlings grown in pots in which the soil had some of the elements intentionally added, and seedlings soaked in solutions containing one or more of the ASTM heavy elements.

    6 Hydroponics is a subset of hydroculture and is a method of growing plants using mineral nutrient solutions, in water, without soil.

    The contractor examined measurements on roots, shoots, bark, trunks, branches, and leaves (or needles, for evergreens). Not every study conducted measurements on each part of the tree. Many studies showed concentrations of the ASTM heavy elements at levels below their solubility limits.

    Antimony. For antimony, the studies examined showed that roots, shoots, branches, and leaves contained antimony in concentrations greater than the ASTM solubility limit of 60 ppm. No tree trunks showed antimony concentrations above the ASTM solubility limit. One study's measurements of tree trunks showed that the trunks were nearly free of antimony.

    Arsenic. For arsenic, trunks, roots shoots, leaves, stems, bark, and branches of trees were characterized. An experimental study showed roots with more than 25 ppm arsenic. A study at a contaminated mining site showed roots, branches, leaves/needles, and shoots with arsenic concentrations above the ASTM solubility limit. However, no tree trunk measurement showed arsenic in concentrations above 25 ppm. In the two tested cases, tree trunks contained only trace levels of arsenic (levels well below the solubility limit).

    One study measured levels of arsenic in sawdust sampled from 15 sawmill locations in the Sapele metropolis (a port city in Nigeria). The highest arsenic concentration measured was 93.0 ppm. The study's authors did not specify what types of trees or wood were processed at the sawmills. However, the authors noted that a major industry in the study area is Africa Timber Plywood Industry and mentioned that arsenic and chromium are used as wood preservatives. Plywood is a manufactured wood and could contain materials not found in natural wood. The authors did not report what woods these sawmills were processing. Therefore, we cannot draw any conclusions from this study.

    Barium. For barium, measurements of leaves, leaf litter, wood, and sawdust all showed barium concentrations below the ASTM solubility limit of 1,000 ppm.

    Cadmium. For cadmium, the studies examined showed cadmium in tree core samples and wood at levels below the ASTM solubility limit of 75 ppm. Studies that measured cadmium in hydroponic samples showed cadmium levels in root, stem bark, stem wood, and leaf parts above 75 ppm. In a similar manner, shoots grown in pots containing varying amounts of cadmium added, showed cadmium concentrations above the ASTM solubility limit in leaves, stems, and roots.

    Chromium. For chromium, one study at a chromate-contaminated site found chromium concentrations above the ASTM solubility limit of 60 ppm in roots, but measurements were below the detection limit for leaves, wood, and bark. Hydroponic studies by the same researcher showed that tree roots can concentrate chromium, but translocation (the movement of a material from one place to another) of chromium from the roots to other parts of the tree, is very low.

    Mercury. For mercury, the contractor reviewed studies that measured mercury uptake in the roots, shoots, leaves, bark, trunks, limbs, fruits, branches, stems, and nuts of trees. The studies included both experimental tests and trees sampled from natural areas. Only an experimental study with seedlings grown in pots, to which either mercuric nitrate, methyl mercury chloride, or both, had been added, showed mercury in concentrations above the ASTM solubility limit in shoots and leaves of sycamore seedlings. The other studies did not show mercury levels above the ASTM solubility limit of 60 ppm in samples, even at contaminated sites.

    Selenium. For selenium, one study showed measured concentrations of 1.4 ppm selenium in tree rings growing in contaminated soil. Other studies showed selenium at concentrations of 10 ppm or less, well below the ASTM solubility limit of 500 ppm. Only an experimental study with tree cuttings grown hydroponically in either sodium selenate or sodium selenite for 6 days, showed root concentrations above the ASTM solubility limit. All other parts of the cuttings had selenium levels below the ASTM solubility limit.

    Conclusions. The contractor's report provides sufficient information for the Commission to determine that unfinished and untreated wood from tree trunks does not contain the ASTM heavy elements in concentrations above their respective solubility limits, and are, therefore, not required to be third party tested to assure compliance with the ASTM F963-11 solubility test. The studies examined multiple species of trees grown on several continents. No study examined by the contractor found any of the ASTM heavy elements in tree trunks at concentrations beyond the element's solubility limit.

    The contractor's report indicates that heavy elements could be present in wood from other portions of the tree: The roots, bark, leaves, or fruit. The studies examined by the contractor showed high levels of one or more of the ASTM heavy elements in portions of trees other than trunks. However, commercial timber harvesting involves the process of “delimbing” The tree to create logs that can be transported and cut at a sawmill or lumberyard.7 Often, the sawmill creates uniform-length planks from the delivered logs. These planks are sold to wood wholesalers or retailers, and are bought by wooden toy and other manufacturers. Because commercial practice creates logs from only the trunks of harvested trees, the wood available for use in toys and other wooden objects is sourced from these logs, or trunks of trees, and not the other parts of trees that could contain the ASTM elements above the limits in the toy standard.8

    7 A succinct description of timber logging can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Logging&redirect=no. A more comprehensive review of timber harvesting can be found at http://www.amazon.com/Tree-Harvesting-Techniques-Forestry-Sciences/dp/9048182824/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1433193105&sr=1-1&keywords=tree+harvesting+techniques%2C+wiksten.

    8 Often, the sawmill creates uniform-length planks from the delivered logs. These planks are sold to wood wholesalers or retailers, and are bought by wooden toy and other manufacturers. Two references to the woods used in toys are: http://www.ehow.com/list_6896897_kinds-wood-toys-made-from_.html, and http://www.woodtoyz.com/WTCat/LearnMaterials.html.

    C. Determination for Unfinished and Untreated Wood for ASTM F963 Limits for Heavy Elements 1. Legal Requirements for a Determination

    As noted above, section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires third party testing for children's products that are subject to a children's product safety rule. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2). Toys must comply with the toy standard, including the specified limits on heavy elements. 15 U.S.C. 2056b. In response to statutory direction, the Commission has investigated approaches that would reduce the burden of third party testing while also assuring compliance with CPSC requirements. As part of that endeavor, the Commission has considered whether certain materials used in toys would not require third party testing.

    To issue a determination that a material does not require third party testing, the Commission must have sufficient evidence to conclude that the material would consistently comply with the CPSC requirement that the material is subject to so that third party testing is unnecessary to provide a high degree of assurance of compliance. 16 CFR part 1107. Section 1107.2, defines “a high degree of assurance” as “an evidence-based demonstration of consistent performance of a product regarding compliance based on knowledge of a product and its manufacture.”

    For a material determination, a high degree of assurance of compliance means that the material will comply with the specified chemical limits due to the nature of the material, or due to a processing technique (e.g., harvesting, smelting, cleaning, filtering, sorting) that reduces the chemical concentration below its limit. For materials determined to comply with a chemical limit, the material must continue to comply with that limit if it is used in a children's product subject to that requirement. A material on which a determination has been made cannot be altered or adulterated to render it noncompliant and then used in a children's product.

    Based on the information discussed in section B of this preamble, the Commission determines that unfinished and untreated trunk wood complies with the solubility requirements for the heavy elements in section 4.3.5 of ASTM F963-11 with a high degree of assurance. This determination means that third party testing for compliance to the solubility requirements is not required for certification purposes for unfinished and untreated trunk wood. The Commission makes this determination to reduce the third party testing burden on children's product certifiers while continuing to ensure compliance.

    2. Potential for Third Party Testing Burden Reduction

    CPSC staff assessed the burden reduction that could result from a determination that unfinished and untreated trunk wood does not require third party testing for compliance with the limits on heavy elements in the toy standards. Testing the soluble concentration of the ASTM heavy elements requires placing the toy (or component part of the toy) in a solution of hydrochloric acid for 2 hours. After 2 hours, the solids are separated from the solution, and the solution is analyzed for the presence of any of the ASTM F963-11 heavy elements using atomic spectroscopy. The cost of this testing can vary by factors such as geography and the volume of testing that a manufacturer obtains from a testing laboratory. Based on published invoices and price lists, the cost of a third party test for the ASTM heavy elements ranges from around $60 in China, up to around $190 in the United States.

    Staff cannot estimate with any certainty what the total potential burden reduction would be from a determination that unfinished and untreated wood will not contain concentrations of antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, mercury, and selenium in excess of the limits in ASTM F963-11. Most of the approximately 80,000 kinds of toys on the market 9 probably do not contain any wood components. If we assume that 10 percent of the approximately 80,000 different kinds of toys on the market have at least one wood component that requires third party testing, and we also assume that the average cost of a third party test is about $125 (representing the approximate midpoint of the range for the test's cost), then the potential total burden reduction from a determination for unfinished and untreated wood from tree trunks would be about $1 million annually. This estimate assumes that only one type of wood was used in a product so that the manufacturer would not have to test each individual unfinished and untreated wood component part in a product, as allowed by the component part testing rule (16 CFR part 1109). The estimated benefits could be lower if some manufacturers certify that their wood components comply with the ASTM F963-11 heavy elements requirements, based on third party tests of their raw materials instead of the finished product, as allowed by the component part testing rule. Moreover, the assumption that 10 percent of the toys have wood components is intended only to illustrate the potential benefits; the assumption is not based on any formal study of the toy market.

    9 The estimate that there are 80,000 different kinds of toys is based on the number of toys listed on the Amazon.com Web site on June 2, 2015, for which Amazon.com was listed as the seller and recommended for children 13 years old or younger. Examples of toys that might include wood components include building blocks, various wood pull toys, some toy cars and trucks, train sets, some games and puzzles, some toy figures, and some toys for toddlers and infants.

    3. Statutory Authority

    Section 3 of the CPSIA grants the Commission general rulemaking authority to issue regulations, as necessary, to implement the CPSIA. Public Law 110-314, § 3, Aug. 14, 2008. As noted previously, section 14 of the CPSA, which was amended by the CPSIA, requires third party testing for children's products that are subject to a children's product safety rule. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2). Section 14(d)(3)(B) of the CPSA, as amended by Public Law 112-28, gives the Commission the authority to “prescribe new or revised third party testing regulations if it determines that such regulations will reduce third party testing costs consistent with assuring compliance with the applicable consumer product safety rules, bans, standards, and regulations.” Id. 2063(d)(3)(B). These statutory provisions authorize the Commission to issue this rule determining that unfinished and untreated trunk wood will not exceed the limits for heavy elements stated in the toy standard, and therefore, unfinished and untreated trunk wood does not require third party conformity assessment body testing to assure compliance with the heavy elements limits stated in the toy standard.

    This determination relieves unfinished and untreated trunk wood from the third party testing requirement of section 14 of the CPSA for purposes of supporting the required certification. However, if the unfinished and untreated wood is altered so that the material exceeds the heavy elements limits of ASTM F963, the determination is not applicable to that material. The changed or altered material or product must then be tested and meet the heavy element requirements of ASTM F963.

    The determination only lifts the obligation to have unfinished and untreated trunk wood tested by a third party conformity assessment body. The underlying requirement that products subject to the toy standard must comply with the toy standard's limits on heavy elements remains in place.

    4. Description of the Rule

    This rule creates a new Part 1251 for “Toys; Determination Regarding Heavy Elements Limits for Unfinished and Untreated Wood.” Section 1251.1 of the rule explains the statutorily-created requirements for toys under ASTM F963 and the third party testing requirements for children's products.

    Section 1251.2(a) of the rule establishes the Commission's determination that unfinished and untreated trunk wood does not exceed the limits for the heavy elements established in section 4.3.5 of the toy standard with a high degree of assurance as that term is defined in 16 CFR part 1107. The determination only applies if the material has not been treated or adulterated with the addition of any materials that could result in the addition of any of the heavy elements listed in the toy standard at levels above their respective solubility limits. In section 1251.2(b) of the rule, unfinished and untreated trunk wood means wood harvested from trees with no added surface coatings (e.g., varnish, paint, shellac, polyurethane) and no materials added to the wood substrate (e.g., stains, dyes, preservatives, antifungals, insecticides). Because commercial practice creates wood from only the trunks of harvested trees, unfinished and untreated wood as used in the rule means wood that is generally commercially available. Unfinished and untreated wood does not include manufactured or engineered woods such as pressed wood, plywood, particle board, or fiberboard.

    D. Direct Final Rule Process

    The Commission is issuing this rule as a direct final rule (“DFR”). The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) generally requires notice and comment rulemaking 5 U.S.C. 553(b). In Recommendation 95-4, the Administrative Conference of the United States (“ACUS”) endorsed direct final rulemaking as an appropriate procedure to expedite promulgation of rules that are noncontroversial and that are not expected to generate significant adverse comment. See 60 FR 43108 (August 18, 1995). Consistent with the ACUS recommendation, the Commission is publishing this rule as a direct final rule because we believe the determination will not be controversial. The rule will not impose any new obligations, but will relieve companies from the requirement of having toys (or materials that are component parts of toys) tested by a third party conformity assessment body if the toys or materials are made of unfinished and untreated wood. We expect that the determination will be supported by stakeholders. The determination responds to the desire expressed by numerous stakeholders and Congress that the Commission provide relief from the burdens of third party testing while also ensuring that products will comply with all applicable children's product safety rules. The rule establishes a discrete determination that a specific material (unfinished and untreated wood) in a particular type of product (toys) will always comply with the toy standard's limits on heavy elements. We expect that this focused action will not engender any significant adverse comments.

    Unless we receive a significant adverse comment within 30 days, the rule will become effective on September 15, 2015. In accordance with ACUS's recommendation, the Commission considers a significant adverse comment to be one where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including an assertion challenging the rule's underlying premise or approach, or a claim that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without change.

    Should the Commission receive a significant adverse comment, the Commission will withdraw this direct final rule. A notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPR”), providing an opportunity for public comment, is also being published in this same issue of the Federal Register.

    E. Effective Date

    The APA generally requires that a substantive rule must be published not less than 30 days before its effective date. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). Because the final rule provides relief from existing testing requirements under the CPSIA, the effective date is September 15, 2015. However, as discussed in section D of the preamble, if the Commission receives a significant adverse comment the Commission will withdraw the DFR and proceed with the NPR published in this same issue of the Federal Register.

    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) generally requires that agencies review proposed and final rules for the rules' potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses, and prepare regulatory flexibility analyses. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

    The rule would relieve toy manufacturers and importers of the responsibility of obtaining third party tests for compliance with the limits on the ASTM elements for components of toys consisting of unfinished and untreated wood. Although the impact will be to reduce testing costs, we expect that the rule would have only limited impact on toy manufacturers and importers for two reasons. First, the rule will affect only those companies that manufacture or import toys that contain unfinished and untreated wood components. We expect that relatively few of the approximately 80,000 toys on the market contain any unfinished and untreated wood components. Therefore this rule would be expected to impact only a small number of manufacturers and importers or at most, a small portion of the toys in the market.

    Second, manufacturers of toys containing unfinished and untreated wood components still would be required to test to other aspects of the ASTM toy standard, so the impact of this rule relative to production costs for most firms should be small. Due to the small number of entities affected and the limited scope of the impact, the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    G. Environmental Considerations

    The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for Commission rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because they “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required. The Commission's regulations state that safety standards for products normally have little or no potential for affecting the human environment. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). Nothing in this rule alters that expectation.

    List of Subjects

    Business and industry, Infants and children, Consumer protection, Imports, Product testing and certification, Toys.

    Accordingly, 16 CFR part 1251 is added to read as follows:

    PART 1251—TOYS: DETERMINATIONS REGARDING HEAVY ELEMENTS LIMITS FOR CERTAIN MATERIALS Sec. 1251.1 The toy standard and testing requirements. 1251.2 Wood. Authority:

    Sec. 3, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016; 15 U.S.C. 2063(d)(3)(B).

    § 1251.1 The toy standard and testing requirements.

    The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (“CPSIA”) made provisions of ASTM F963, Consumer Product Safety Specifications for Toy Safety (“toy standard”), a mandatory consumer product safety standard. Among the mandated provisions is section 4.3.5 of ASTM F963 which requires that surface coating materials and accessible substrates of toys that can be sucked, mouthed, or ingested, must comply with solubility limits that the toy standard establishes for eight heavy elements. Materials used in toys subject to section 4.3.5 of the toy standard must comply with the third party testing requirements of section 14(a)(2) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”), unless listed in § 1251.2.

    § 1251.2 Wood.

    (a) Unfinished and untreated wood does not exceed the limits for the heavy elements established in section 4.3.5 of the toy standard with a high degree of assurance as that term is defined in 16 CFR part 1107, provided that the material has been neither treated nor adulterated with materials that could result in the addition of any of the heavy elements listed in the toy standard at levels above their respective solubility limits.

    (b) For purposes of this section, unfinished and untreated wood means wood harvested from the trunks of trees with no added surface coatings (such as, varnish, paint, shellac, or polyurethane) and no materials added to the wood substrate (such as, stains, dyes, preservatives, antifungals, or insecticides). Unfinished and untreated wood does not include manufactured or engineered woods (such as pressed wood, plywood, particle board, or fiberboard).

    Dated: July 13, 2015. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17413 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration 21 CFR Part 1308 [Docket No. DEA-413F] Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of Acetyl Fentanyl Into Schedule I AGENCY:

    Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Final order.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is issuing this final order to temporarily schedule the synthetic opioid, N-(1-phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-N-phenylacetamide (acetyl fentanyl), and its optical, positional, and geometric isomers, salts and salts of isomers, into schedule I pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act. This action is based on a finding by the Administrator that the placement of this opioid substance into schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. As a result of this order, the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to schedule I controlled substances will be imposed on persons who handle (manufacture, distribute, import, export, engage in research, or possess), or propose to handle, acetyl fentanyl.

    DATES:

    This final order is effective on July 17, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John R. Scherbenske, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152, Telephone: (202) 598-6812.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Legal Authority

    The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purpose of this action. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while ensuring an adequate supply is available for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.

    Under the CSA, every controlled substance is classified into one of five schedules based upon its potential for abuse, its currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and the degree of dependence the drug or other substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of all scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308.

    Section 201 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811, provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if she finds that such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). In addition, if proceedings to control a substance are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2).

    Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under section 202 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 355. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). The Attorney General has delegated her scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.

    Background

    Section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), requires the Administrator to notify the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of the Administrator's intention to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA.1 The Administrator transmitted the notice of intent to place acetyl fentanyl into schedule I on a temporary basis to the Assistant Secretary by letter dated April 7, 2015. The Assistant Secretary responded to this notice by letter dated April 29, 2015 (received by the DEA on May 05, 2015), and advised that based on review by the FDA, there are currently no investigational new drug applications or approved new drug applications for acetyl fentanyl. The Assistant Secretary also stated that the HHS has no objection to the temporary placement of acetyl fentanyl into schedule I of the CSA. The DEA has taken into consideration the Assistant Secretary's comments as required by 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4). Acetyl fentanyl is not currently listed in any schedule under the CSA, and no exemptions or approvals are in effect for acetyl fentanyl under section 505 of the FDCA, 21 U.S.C. 355. The DEA has found that the scheduling of acetyl fentanyl in schedule I on a temporary basis is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to public safety, and as required by 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1)(A), a notice of intent to temporarily schedule acetyl fentanyl was published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2015. 80 FR 29227.

    1 Because the Secretary of the HHS has delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Health of the HHS the authority to make domestic drug scheduling recommendations, for purposes of this final order, all subsequent references to “Secretary” have been replaced with “Assistant Secretary.” As set forth in a memorandum of understanding entered into by HHS, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the FDA acts as the lead agency within the HHS in carrying out the Assistant Secretary's scheduling responsibilities under the CSA, with the concurrence of NIDA. 50 FR 9518, Mar. 8, 1985.

    To find that placing a substance temporarily into schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the Administrator is required to consider three of the eight factors set forth in section 201(c) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(c): the substance's history and current pattern of abuse; the scope, duration and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to the public health. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3). Consideration of these factors includes actual abuse, diversion from legitimate channels, and clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3).

    A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed into schedule I. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1). Available data and information for acetyl fentanyl, summarized below, indicate that this synthetic opioid has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. The DEA analysis is available in its entirety under the tab “Supporting and Related Material” of the public docket of this action at www.regulations.gov under Docket Number DEA-413F.

    Factor 4. History and Current Pattern of Abuse

    Clandestinely produced substances structurally related to the schedule II opioid analgesic fentanyl were trafficked and abused on the West Coast in the late 1970s and 1980s. These clandestinely produced fentanyl-like substances were commonly known as designer drugs, and recently, there has been a reemergence in the trafficking and abuse of designer drug substances, including fentanyl-like substances. Alpha-methylfentanyl, the first fentanyl analogue identified in California, was placed into schedule I of the CSA in September 1981. Following the control of alpha-methylfentanyl, the DEA identified several other fentanyl analogues (3-methylthiofentanyl, acetyl-alpha-methylfentanyl, beta-hydroxy-3-methylfentanyl, alpha-methylthiofentanyl, thiofentanyl, beta-hydroxyfentanyl, para-fluorofentanyl and 3-methylfentanyl) in submissions to forensic laboratories. These substances were temporarily controlled under schedule I of the CSA after finding that they posed an imminent hazard to public safety and were subsequently permanently placed into schedule I of the CSA.

    The National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS) is a national drug forensic laboratory reporting system that systematically collects results from drug chemistry analyses conducted by State and local forensic laboratories across the country. The first laboratory submission of acetyl fentanyl was recorded in Maine in April 2013 according to NFLIS. NFLIS registered eight reports containing acetyl fentanyl in 2013 in Louisiana, Maine, and North Dakota; and 30 reports in 2014 in Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

    The System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE) is a database of drug exhibits sent to DEA laboratories for analysis. Exhibits from this database are from the DEA, other Federal agencies, and some local law enforcement agencies. Acetyl fentanyl was first reported to STRIDE in September 2013 from exhibits obtained through a controlled purchase in Louisiana. In October 2013, an exhibit collected from a controlled purchase of suspected oxycodone tablets in Rhode Island contained acetyl fentanyl as the primary substance. In 2014, STARLiMS (a Web-based, commercial laboratory information management system that is in transition to replace STRIDE) and STRIDE reported eight additional seizures in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, and Washington.

    In August 2013, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published an article in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report documenting a series of 14 fatalities related to acetyl fentanyl that occurred between March and May 2013. In December 2013, another fatality associated with acetyl fentanyl was reported in Rhode Island for a total of 15 fatalities. In February 2014, the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services issued a health advisory related to acetyl fentanyl following at least three deaths related to this synthetic drug. Toxicologists at the North Carolina Office of the Chief Medical Examiner detected acetyl fentanyl in specimens associated with deaths that occurred in January 2014 in Sampson, Person, and Transylvania counties. In July and August 2014, four additional fatalities involving acetyl fentanyl were reported for a total of seven fatalities in North Carolina. Deaths involving acetyl fentanyl have also been reported in California (1), Louisiana (14), Oregon (1) and Pennsylvania (1).

    A significant seizure of acetyl fentanyl occurred in April 2013 during a law enforcement investigation in Montreal, Canada. Approximately three kilograms of acetyl fentanyl in powder form and approximately 11,000 tablets containing acetyl fentanyl were seized. Given that a typical dose of acetyl fentanyl is in the microgram range, a three kilogram quantity could potentially produce millions of dosage units. In the United States, tablets that mimic pharmaceutical opioid products have been reported in multiple states, including Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Rhode Island, and Washington. Recent reports indicate that acetyl fentanyl in powder form is available over the Internet and has been imported to addresses within the United States.

    Evidence also suggests that the pattern of abuse of fentanyl analogues, including acetyl fentanyl, parallels that of heroin and prescription opioid analgesics. For example, seizures of acetyl fentanyl have been encountered both in powder and in tablet form. It is also known to have caused many fatal overdoses, in which intravenous routes of administration and histories of drug abuse are documented.

    Factor 5. Scope, Duration and Significance of Abuse

    The DEA is currently aware of at least 39 fatalities associated with acetyl fentanyl. These deaths occurred in 2013 and 2014 from six states including California, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. STARLiMS and STRIDE, databases capturing drug evidence information from DEA forensic laboratories, have a total of 10 drug reports in which acetyl fentanyl was identified in six cases for analyzed drugs submitted from January 2010—December 2014 from Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Rhode Island, and Washington. It is likely that the prevalence of acetyl fentanyl in opioid analgesic-related emergency room admissions and deaths is underreported since standard immunoassays cannot differentiate acetyl fentanyl from fentanyl.

    The population likely to abuse acetyl fentanyl overlaps with the populations abusing prescription opioid analgesics and heroin. This is evidenced by the routes of administration and drug use history documented in acetyl fentanyl fatal overdose cases. Because abusers of acetyl fentanyl are likely to obtain the drug through illicit sources, the identity, purity, and quantity is uncertain and inconsistent, thus posing significant adverse health risks to its abusers. This risk is particularly heightened by the fact that acetyl fentanyl is a highly potent opioid (15.7 fold more potent than that of morphine as tested in mice using an acetic acid writhing method). Thus small changes in the amount and purity of the substance could potentially lead to overdose and death.

    Factor 6. What, if Any, Risk There Is to the Public Health

    Acetyl fentanyl exhibits a pharmacological profile similar to that of fentanyl and other opioid analgesic compounds, and it is a potent opioid analgesic reported to be 1/3 as potent as fentanyl and 15.7 times as potent as morphine in mice tested in an acetic acid writhing method. In addition, studies also showed that the range between the effective dose (ED50) and the lethal dose (LD50) of acetyl fentanyl is narrower than that of morphine and fentanyl, increasing the risk of fatal overdose. Thus, its abuse is likely to pose quantitatively greater risks to the public health and safety than abuse of traditional opioid analgesics such as morphine.

    Based on the above pharmacological data, the abuse of acetyl fentanyl at least leads to the same qualitative public health risks as heroin, fentanyl, and other opioid analgesic compounds. The public health risks attendant to the abuse of heroin and opioid analgesics are well established. The abuse of opioid analgesics has resulted in large numbers of drug treatment admissions, emergency department visits, and fatal overdoses.

    Acetyl fentanyl has been associated with numerous fatalities. At least 39 overdose deaths due to acetyl fentanyl abuse have been reported in six states in 2013 and 2014, California, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. This indicates that acetyl fentanyl poses an imminent hazard to public safety.

    Finding of Necessity of Schedule I Placement To Avoid Imminent Hazard to Public Safety

    Based on the data and information summarized above, the continued uncontrolled manufacture, distribution, importation, exportation, and abuse of acetyl fentanyl poses an imminent hazard to the public safety. The DEA is not aware of any currently accepted medical uses for this substance in the United States. A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), may only be placed into schedule I. Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Available data and information for acetyl fentanyl indicate that this substance has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. As required by section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Administrator, through a letter dated April 7, 2015, notified the Assistant Secretary of the DEA's intention to temporarily place this substance into schedule I.

    Conclusion

    In accordance with the provisions of section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), the Administrator considered available data and information, herein sets forth the grounds for his determination that it is necessary to temporarily schedule N-(1-phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-N-phenylacetamide (acetyl fentanyl), into schedule I of the CSA, and finds that placement of this synthetic opioid into schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. Because the Administrator hereby finds it necessary to temporarily place this synthetic opioid into schedule I to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, this final order temporarily scheduling acetyl fentanyl will be effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register, and will be in effect for a period of two years, with a possible extension of one additional year, pending completion of the regular (permanent) scheduling process. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1) and (2).

    The CSA sets forth specific criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Regular scheduling actions in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a) are subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing” conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. 21 U.S.C. 811. The regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking affords interested parties with appropriate process and the government with any additional relevant information needed to make a determination. Final decisions that conclude the regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking are subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 877. Temporary scheduling orders are not subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(6).

    Requirements for Handling

    Upon the effective date of this final order, acetyl fentanyl will become subject to the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, importation, exportation, research, conduct of instructional activities, and possession of schedule I controlled substances including the following:

    1. Registration. Any person who handles (manufactures, distributes, imports, exports, engages in research, conducts instructional activities with, or possesses), or who desires to handle, acetyl fentanyl must be registered with the DEA to conduct such activities pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, and 958 and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312, as of July 17, 2015. Any person who currently handles acetyl fentanyl, and is not registered with the DEA, must submit an application for registration and may not continue to handle acetyl fentanyl as of July 17, 2015, unless the DEA has approved that application for registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312. Retail sales of schedule I controlled substances to the general public are not allowed under the CSA. Possession of any quantity of this substance in a manner not authorized by the CSA on or after July 17, 2015 is unlawful and those in possession of any quantity of this substance may be subject to prosecution pursuant to the CSA.

    2. Security. Acetyl fentanyl is subject to schedule I security requirements and must be handled and stored pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 821, 823, 871(b), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.71-1301.93, as of July 17, 2015.

    3. Labeling and packaging. All labels, labeling, and packaging for commercial containers of acetyl fentanyl must be in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 825, 958(e), and be in accordance with 21 CFR part 1302 as of July 17, 2015. Current DEA registrants shall have 30 calendar days from July 17, 2015, to comply with all labeling and packaging requirements.

    4. Inventory. Every DEA registrant who possesses any quantity of acetyl fentanyl on the effective date of this order must take an inventory of all stocks of this substance on hand as of July 17, 2015, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11(a) and (d). Current DEA registrants shall have 30 calendar days from the effective date of this order to be in compliance with all inventory requirements. After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant must take an inventory of all controlled substances (including acetyl fentanyl) on hand on a biennial basis, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.

    5. Records. All DEA registrants must maintain records with respect to acetyl fentanyl pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1304, 1307, and 1312 as of July 17, 2015. Current DEA registrants authorized to handle acetyl fentanyl shall have 30 calendar days from the effective date of this order to be in compliance with all recordkeeping requirements.

    6. Reports. All DEA registrants who manufacture or distribute acetyl fentanyl must submit reports pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1304, 1307, and 1312 as of July 17, 2015.

    7. Order Forms. All DEA registrants who distribute acetyl fentanyl must comply with order form requirements pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 828 and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1305 as of July 17, 2015.

    8. Importation and Exportation. All importation and exportation of acetyl fentanyl must be in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 952, 953, 957, 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1312 as of July 17, 2015.

    9. Quota. Only DEA registered manufacturers may manufacture acetyl fentanyl in accordance with a quota assigned pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 826 and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1303 as of July 17, 2015.

    10. Liability. Any activity involving acetyl fentanyl not authorized by, or in violation of the CSA, occurring as of July 17, 2015, is unlawful, and may subject the person to administrative, civil, and/or criminal sanctions.

    Regulatory Matters

    Section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), provides for an expedited temporary scheduling action where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. As provided in this subsection, the Attorney General may, by order, schedule a substance in schedule I on a temporary basis. Such an order may not be issued before the expiration of 30 days from (1) the publication of a notice in the Federal Register of the intention to issue such order and the grounds upon which such order is to be issued, and (2) the date that notice of the proposed temporary scheduling order is transmitted to the Assistant Secretary. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1).

    Inasmuch as section 201(h) of the CSA directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued, the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) at 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this temporary scheduling action. In the alternative, even assuming that this action might be subject to 5 U.S.C. 553, the Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice and comment requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553, as any further delays in the process for issuance of temporary scheduling orders would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in view of the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.

    Further, the DEA believes that this temporary scheduling action final order is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, the DEA is not required by the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking.

    Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, “any rule for which an agency for good cause finds . . . that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the Federal agency promulgating the rule determines.” 5 U.S.C. 808(2). It is in the public interest to schedule these substances immediately because they pose a public health risk. This temporary scheduling action is taken pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h), which is specifically designed to enable the DEA to act in an expeditious manner to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h) exempts the temporary scheduling order from standard notice and comment rulemaking procedures to ensure that the process moves swiftly. For the same reasons that underlie 21 U.S.C. 811(h), that is, the DEA's need to move quickly to place this substance into schedule I because it poses an imminent hazard to public safety, it would be contrary to the public interest to delay implementation of the temporary scheduling order. Therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 808(2), this order shall take effect immediately upon its publication.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308

    Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set out above, the DEA amends 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:

    PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 1. The authority citation for part 1308 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend § 1308.11 by adding paragraph (h)(24) to read as follows:
    § 1308.11 Schedule I.

    (h) * * *

    (24) N-(1-phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-N-phenylacetamide, its optical, positional, and geometric isomers, salts and salts of isomers (Other names: acetyl fentanyl) (9821).
    Dated: July 13, 2015. Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17563 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 147 [Docket Number USCG-2014-0863] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Big Foot TLP, Walker Ridge 29, Outer Continental Shelf on the Gulf of Mexico AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Interim rule and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone around the Big Foot Tension Leg Platform construction site, located in Walker Ridge Block 29 on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Gulf of Mexico. The purpose of this interim rule is to include the construction area and protect the facility and all operations during the construction phase from all vessels operating outside the normal shipping channels and fairways that are not providing services to or working with the facility. Placing a safety zone around the facility while under construction that includes the construction site will significantly reduce the threat of allisions, collisions, security breaches, oil spills, releases of natural gas, and thereby protect the safety of life, property, and the environment.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective without actual notice July 17, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from June 3, 2015 until July 17, 2015. Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 3, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of Docket Number USCG-2014-0863. 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 Mr. Rusty Wright, U.S. Coast Guard, District Eight Waterways Management Branch; telephone 504-671-2138, [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 DHS Department of Homeland Security NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking OCS Outer Continental Shelf 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 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 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

    On March 25, 2015 we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with a request for comments entitled, “Safety Zone; Big Foot TLP, Walker Ridge 29, Outer Continental Shelf on the Gulf of Mexico” in the Federal Register (80 FR 15703). We received no comments on the NPRM. Before publication of the final rule, Chevron North America (Chevron) notified the Coast Guard of specific challenges during the Big Foot Tension Leg Platform's (TLP) construction phase. Specifically, multiple tendon failures occurred while the Big Foot TLP was going through installation operations. These tendon failures resulted in losing a buoyancy can, which went adrift. Subsequently, the construction operation was put on hold but the remaining tendons and construction/attending vessels and equipment remain on site. The Coast Guard decided to expand the original proposed safety zone to include the construction site as part of the facility for purposes of an interim safety zone during the construction phase. Under 33 CFR 147.1, a safety zone may be established around OCS facilities being constructed, maintained, or operated for safety of life and property. And, under 33 CFR 147.15, a safety zone may extend up to a maximum of 500 meters around an OCS facility measuring from the facility's outer most edge or from its construction site. While the remaining tendons and construction vessels and equipment remain on site and during construction of the Big Foot TLP, this interim rule is necessary to establish the safety zone as extending 500 meters from the construction site to protect persons and vessels from hazards inherent to construction of this type of platform on the OCS. Once the Big Foot TLP facility is constructed, a final rule will revise the safety zone to extend from the constructed facility's outer most edges.

    This interim rule follows an NPRM that received no comments. The Coast Guard is issuing this interim rule without further notice 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 when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” As stated above, an NPRM proposing a safety zone around the Big Foot TLP facility was published in March and no comments were received. The NPRM provided prior notice and opportunity to comment. This interim rule provides additional opportunity to comment. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not providing additional notice with respect to this interim rule establishing the safety zone as extending from the construction site rather than from the facility location. Construction and installation operations are expected to resume promptly and immediate action is necessary to establish this interim OCS safety zone during the Big Foot TLP's construction phase to protect life and property from the hazards associated with and resulting from the construction operations.

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

    C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define OCS safety zones.

    Because of construction and installation complications, the Coast Guard explored establishing the safety zone proposed in the NPRM published in March 2015 (80 FR 15703) as an interim rule, rather than a final rule at this time, extending from the construction site during the construction phase. Chevron also requested that the Coast Guard establish the interim OCS safety zone around the Big Foot TLP construction site located in the deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico on the OCS. Placing a safety zone around the construction site will significantly reduce the threat of allisions, oil spills, and releases of natural gas, and thereby protect the safety of life, property, and the environment.

    The construction and installation complications pose significant safety hazards to vessels and mariners operating in the area. The Coast Guard is issuing this interim rule during construction which Chevron anticipates continuing for at least six months. Establishing the OCS safety zone to extend 500 meters (1640.4 feet) from the outside of the 1/2 x 1/2 square mile construction site is necessary to maintain navigational safety during the anticipated six month construction phase.

    D. Discussion of the Interim Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing an interim OCS safety zone extending 500 meters (1640.4 feet) from the outer edges of the Big Foot TLP's 1/2 mile by 1/2 mile construction site. The construction site outermost points are located at:

    NW Corner 26-56-18.85 N, 090-31-26.44 W NE Corner 26-56-18.85 N, 090-30-53.06 W SE Corner 26-55-46.76 N, 090-30-53.06 W SW Corner 26-55-46.76 N, 090-31-26.44 W Transit into and through this area is prohibited beginning upon signature of this rule and will continue until construction efforts are complete. Deviation from this OCS safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the District Commander or a designated representative. Deviation requests will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The District Commander may be contacted by telephone at 1-800-939-7203. E. 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. This rule is not a significant regulatory action due to the location of the Big Foot TLP—on the Outer Continental Shelf—and its distance from both land and safety fairways. Vessel traffic can pass safely around the safety zone using alternate routes. Deviation to transit through the safety zone may be requested. Such requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis and may be authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

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

    This 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 Walker Ridge Block 29, where this safety zone is now established.

    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact or a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Vessel traffic can pass safely around the safety zone using an alternate route. Use of an alternate route may cause minimal delay in reaching a final destination, depending on other traffic in the area and vessel speed. Vessels may request deviation from this rule to transit through the safety zone. Such requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis and may be authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative. Therefore, the Coast Guard expects any impact of this rulemaking establishing a safety zone around an OCS facility to be minimal, with no significant economic impact on small entities.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

    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 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 rule involves the establishment of a safety zone around an OCS Facility to protect life, property and the marine environment. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. The environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 147

    Continental shelf, Marine safety, Navigation (water).

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 147 as follows:

    PART 147—SAFETY ZONES 1. The authority citation for part 147 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 147.861 to read as follows:
    § 147.861 Interim Big Foot TLP Construction Site safety zone.

    (a) Description. The Big Foot Tension Leg Platform (TLP) construction site is in the deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico at Walker Ridge 29. The Big Foot TLP construction site outermost points are located at:

    NW Corner 26-56-18.85 N, 090-31-26.44 W

    NE Corner 26-56-18.85 N, 090-30-53.06 W

    SE Corner 26-55-46.76 N, 090-30-53.06 W

    SW Corner 26-55-46.76 N, 090-31-26.44 W,

    and the area within 500 meters of the construction site's outermost points, is a safety zone.

    (b) Regulation. No vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone except the following:

    (1) An attending vessel;

    (2) A vessel authorized by the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District or a designated representative.

    Dated: June 3, 2015. David R. Callahan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17620 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0530] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone—Chicago Air and Water Show AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Chicago Air and Water Show on a portion of Lake Michigan, on August 13, 2015 through August 18, 2015. This action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the air and water show. During the enforcement period listed below, the Coast Guard will enforce restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in the safety zone. No person or vessel may enter the safety zone while it is being enforced without permission of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.929 will be enforced for safety zone (f)(10), Table 33 CFR 165.929, on August 13, 2015, through August 18, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on each day.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this document, call or email LT Lindsay Cook, Waterways Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, at 630-986-2155, email address [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone; Chicago Air and Water Show listed as item (f)(10) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929. Section 165.929 lists many annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. This safety zone encompasses all waters and adjacent shoreline of Lake Michigan and Chicago Harbor bounded by a line drawn from 41°55.900′ N at the shoreline, then east to 41°55.900′ N, 087°37.200′ W, then southeast to 41°54.000′ N, 087°36.000′ W, then southwestward to the northeast corner of the Jardine Water Filtration Plant, then due west to the shore. This zone will be enforced on August 13, 2015, through August 18, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on each day.

    All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or a designated on-scene representative to enter, move within, or exit this safety zone. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative.

    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 during the event.

    Dated: June 16, 2015. A.B. Cocanour, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17614 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0295] RIN 1625-AA00; 1625-AA11 Safety Zones and Regulated Navigation Area; Shell Arctic Drilling/Exploration Vessels and Associated Voluntary First Amendment Area, Puget Sound, WA, Extension AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is extending the temporary safety zones and regulated navigation area that were previously established because the departure of several of the vessels associated with Royal Dutch Shell's (Shell) planned Arctic oil drilling and exploration operations have been delayed. The safety zones and regulated navigation area extended by this rule are necessary to ensure the mutual safety of all waterways users including the specified vessels and those individuals that desire to exercise their First Amendment rights.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective without actual notice from July 17, 2015 through July 31, 2015. For purposes of enforcement, the rule is effective with actual notice from July 1, 2015 through July 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-0295. 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 Lieutenant Matthew Beck, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound; telephone (206) 217-6051, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    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 publishing an NPRM would be impracticable since the regulation is immediately necessary to help ensure the safety of all waterway users including the specified vessels and those individuals that desire to exercise their First Amendment rights and holding a notice and comment period at this time would delay regulatory implementation beyond the departure of the last Shell contracted vessel and expected First Amendment activities regarding Shell's operations, thereby increasing the safety risk to all waterways users.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For reasons identical to those described above, delaying the effective date until 30 days after publication would be impracticable since the regulation is immediately necessary to help ensure the safety of all waterway users.

    B. Basis and Purpose

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

    Shell is planning Arctic oil drilling and exploration operations for the spring and summer of 2015. In preparation for those operations, it is staging a large number of vessels in the Puget Sound area. There has been a significant amount of First Amendment activity related to Shell's operations in the Puget Sound during the last month including the formation of a “kayak flotilla” used to exercise the participating individuals First Amendment rights regarding Shell's operations in the region. Among other activities, the “kayak flotilla” attempted to block the POLAR PIONEER's departure from Seattle, Washington. Also, Greenpeace International members conducted an unauthorized boarding of a Shell contracted vessel on the high seas. Draft restrictions, vessel maneuvering characteristics, and geographic/environmental conditions may constrain the ability of large commercial vessels (the Shell-contracted vessels) to maneuver in close quarters with other vessels, particularly small craft piloted by recreational operators. Intentional close-in interaction of these vessels will create an increased risk of collision, grounding, or personal injury for all parties. Furthermore, while moored or at anchor the vessels will have ongoing operations occurring onboard, some of which could pose a safety risk to other maritime traffic. The myriad of potential safety risks to all parties and the port itself is best addressed by mandating a minimum zone of separation. For these reasons, the Coast Guard believes that safety zones around the Shell-contracted vessels are necessary to ensure the safety of all waterways users.

    Additionally, the Coast Guard believes that given the nature of the First Amendment activity expected and the likely type of vessels used by individuals desiring to express their First Amendment rights, namely kayaks and other small vessels, a regulated navigation area designating a Voluntary First Amendment Area is necessary to ensure the safety of those vessels and persons. The regulated navigation area encompassing the Voluntary First Amendment Area would do so by establishing it as a “no wake” area, which is particularly important for small boats such as kayaks, to better enable persons and vessels to congregate and exercise their First Amendment rights safely and without interference from or interfering with other maritime traffic.

    This rule is extending the rule established at 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 165.T13-289 as published in the Federal Register (80 FR 23445) due to the fact that the departure from the Puget Sound of several of the vessels associated with Shell's planned Arctic oil drilling and exploration operations have been delayed.

    C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    In this rule, the Coast Guard is extending the temporary safety zones and regulated navigation area established at 33 CFR 165.T13-289 as published in the Federal Register (80 FR 23445).

    The safety zones are established in subsection (a) of this temporary regulation. Per subsection (a)(1)(i), while transiting, the safety zone around each of the vessels will encompass all waters within 500 yards of the vessel in all directions. Per subsection (a)(1)(ii), while moored or anchored, the safety zone around each of the vessels will encompass all waters within 100 yards of the vessel in all directions. Persons and/or vessels that desire to enter these safety zones must request permission to do so from the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound by contacting the Joint Harbor Operations Center at 206-217-6001, or the on-scene Law Enforcement patrol craft, if any, via VHF-FM CH 16.

    The Coast Guard is also establishing a regulated navigation area to ensure the safety of individuals that desire to exercise their First Amendment rights related to Shell's activities in subsection (b) of this regulation. The Voluntary First Amendment Area is being established in an area where we believe individuals will be able to effectively communicate their message, without posing an undue risk to maritime safety, after analyzing maritime traffic patterns and other environmental factors as well as meeting with some groups who have expressed a desire to exercise their First Amendment rights. The regulated navigation area encompassing the Voluntary First Amendment Area will ensure the safety of small boats by establishing it as a “no wake” area for persons and/or vessels to congregate and exercise their First Amendment rights safely and without interference from or interfering with other maritime traffic. The “no wake” provisions will ensure all interactions between vessels within the area occur at a low rate of speed, thereby reducing risk of collision and personal injury. Likewise, the designation of a Voluntary First Amendment Area will help to ensure that a large congregation of vessels does not impede or endanger other commercial and recreational users who are not associated with Shell's arctic drilling and exploration operations or the associated First Amendment activity.

    These provisions are particularly vital given the expected presence of the “kayak flotilla” described above. Persons or vessels desiring to exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech regarding Shell's Arctic drilling and exploration operations may enter the regulated navigation area at any time. All other persons or vessels are advised to avoid the regulated navigation area. When inside the regulated navigation area, all vessels must proceed at “no wake” speed and with due regard for all other persons and/or vessels inside the regulated navigation area.

    D. Regulatory Analyses

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

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule is not a significant regulatory action as the safety zones and regulated navigation area are limited in both size and duration and any person and/or vessel needing to transit through the safety zones or regulated navigation area may be allowed to do so in accordance with the regulatory provisions.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the affected waterways when the safety zones and regulated navigation areas are in effect. The safety zones and regulated navigation areas will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, however, because the safety zones and regulated navigation area are limited in both size and duration and any person and/or vessel needing to transit through the safety zones or regulated navigation area may be allowed to do so in accordance with the regulatory provisions.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

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

    6. First Amendment Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of all individuals. This regulation establishes a regulated navigation area to create a Voluntary First Amendment Area so that persons and vessels can congregate and exercise their First Amendment free speech rights safely and without interference from or interfering with other maritime traffic. Of particular note, large vessels operating in restricted waters cannot maneuver freely, nor can they stop immediately. As such, any First Amendment activity taking place in immediate proximity to such vessels can quickly result in extremis. The Voluntary First Amendment Area has been located to allow individuals a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Individuals that desire to exercise their First Amendment rights are asked utilize the designated area to the extent possible, however, its use is voluntary. Individuals that desire to exercise their First Amendment rights outside the designated area are requested to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INTFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate their activities so that their message can be heard, without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children

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

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    12. Energy Effects

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

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of temporary safety zones and a regulated navigation area to deal with an emergency situation that is one week or longer in duration. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    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.T13-289 to read as follows:
    § 165.T13-289 Safety Zones and Regulated Navigation Area; Shell Arctic Drilling/Exploration Vessels and Associated Voluntary First Amendment Area, Puget Sound, WA, Extension.

    (a) Safety Zones—(1) Location. The following areas are designated as safety zones:

    (i) All waters within 500 yards of the following vessels while transiting within the U.S. Territorial or Internal Waters of the Sector Puget Sound Captain of the Port Zone as defined in 33 CFR 3.65-10: NOBLE DISCOVERER, BLUE MARLIN, POLAR PIONEER, AIVIQ, FENNICA, NORDICA, ROSS CHOUEST, TOR VIKING, OCEAN WIND, OCEAN WAVE, HARVEY SISUAQ, HARVEY CHAMPION, HARVEY SUPPORTER, HARVEY EXPLORER, NANUQ, GUARDSMAN, KLAMATH, PT OLIKTOK, ARCTIC ENDEAVOR, CORBIN FOSS, ACS, ARCTIC CHALLENGER, ARCTIC SEAL, CROWLEY DIANA G, LAUREN FOSS, TUUQ, BARBARA FOSS, AMERICAN TRADER, and any other vessel actively engaged in towing or escorting those vessels.

    (ii) All waters within 100 yards of the following vessels while moored or anchored within the U.S. Territorial or Internal Waters of the Sector Puget Sound Captain of the Port Zone as defined in 33 CFR 3.65-10: NOBLE DISCOVERER, BLUE MARLIN, POLAR PIONEER, AIVIQ, FENNICA, NORDICA, ROSS CHOUEST, TOR VIKING, OCEAN WIND, OCEAN WAVE, HARVEY SISUAQ, HARVEY CHAMPION, HARVEY SUPPORTER, HARVEY EXPLORER, NANUQ, GUARDSMAN, KLAMATH, PT OLIKTOK, ARCTIC ENDEAVOR, CORBIN FOSS, ACS, ARCTIC CHALLENGER, ARCTIC SEAL, CROWLEY DIANA G, LAUREN FOSS, TUUQ, BARBARA FOSS, AMERICAN TRADER, and any other vessel actively engaged in towing or escorting the listed vessels.

    (2) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR part 165 Subpart C, no persons or vessels may enter these safety zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his designated representative. To request permission to enter one of these safety zones contact the Joint Harbor Operations Center at 206-217-6001, or the on-scene Law Enforcement patrol craft, if any, via VHF-FM CH 16. If permission for entry into one of these safety zones is granted, vessels must proceed at a minimum speed for safe navigation.

    (b) Regulated navigation area—(1) Location. The following area is designated as a regulated navigation area: All waters of Elliot Bay encompassed by lines connecting the following points located between Seacrest Park and Terminal 5: 47°35′20.47″ N, 122°21′53.32″ W; thence south to 47°35′11.54″ N, 122°21′53.24″ W; thence west to 47°35′11.47″ N, 122°22′26.44″ W; thence north to 47°35′20.47″ N, 122°22′26.40″ W; thence back to the point of origin.

    (2) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR part 165 Subpart B, persons or vessels desiring to exercise their First Amendment right to free speech regarding Royal Dutch Shell's Arctic drilling and exploration operations may enter the regulated navigation area at any time. All other persons or vessels are advised to avoid the regulated navigation area. When inside the regulated navigation area, all vessels must proceed at no wake speed and with due regard for all other persons and/or vessels inside the regulated navigation area.

    (c) Dates. This rule will be enforced from July 1, 2015 through July 31, 2015.

    Dated: June 29, 2015. R.T. Gromlich, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17615 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 501 Revisions to the Requirements for Authority To Manufacture and Distribute Postage Evidencing Systems AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service is revising the rules concerning authorization to manufacture and distribute postage evidencing systems to reflect new revenue assurance practices.

    DATES:

    Effective: July 17, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marlo Kay Ivey, Business Systems Analyst, Payment Technology, U.S. Postal Service, (202) 268-7613

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On April 23, 2015, the United States Postal Service published a proposed rule to amend 39 CFR part 501 to support the automated revenue assurance program currently in development. (See, 80 FR 22661). Comments were received from two industry stakeholders. The first comment generally supported the proposed rule as written. The second comment suggested that the proposed rule should be clarified to apply only to PC Postage systems, and not postage meters. Further, it suggested that the proposal inadequately addressed the cost burden that would be imposed on PC Postage providers, and should provide additional detail regarding account suspension processes, adjustments for overpayment of postage, and the role of the PC Postage provider in the dispute resolution process.

    The Postal Service believes that the rule as proposed is appropriately written to encompass all postage evidencing systems. While initial automated collection efforts will be facilitated by PC Postage vendors, all customers should pay postage accurately, regardless of the postage technology they elect to use. As automated solutions become available for the various postage evidencing systems USPS will coordinate implementation plans with the parties concerned. Current manual efforts employed by the Postal Service to collect proper postage are costly and inefficient. An automated approach will reduce costs and improve overall recovery efforts. The costs of program administration will be acknowledged and considered as the USPS establishes operative recovery thresholds and certain other program related business rules. Account suspension, however, is already specifically addressed in postal regulations not modified by this proposal (see, 39 CFR 501.6), and we see no current need for further clarifications in these regulations. We further believe that the proposed rule as written (in conjunction with current 39 CFR 501.11 and 501.12) appropriately discusses PC Postage provider participation in the dispute process. The Postal Service is working diligently to ensure the quality and accuracy of postage evidencing data using automated process controls, and may elect to make such adjustments to our rules in the future as are required to achieve that end. At this time, however, we believe it is appropriate to publish this final rule.

    List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 501

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated, 39 CFR part 501 is amended as follows:

    PART 501—AUTHORIZATION TO MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTE POSTAGE EVIDENCING SYSTEMS 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 501 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 410, 2601, 2605, Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (Pub. L. 95-452, as amended); 5 U.S.C. App. 3.

    2. In § 501.1, revise paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 501.1 Definitions.

    (g) A customer is a person or entity authorized by the Postal Service to use a Postage Evidencing System as an end user in accordance with Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), including 604 Postage Payment Methods and Refunds, 4.0 Postage Meters and PC Postage Products (Postage Evidencing Systems).

    3. In § 501.2, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 501.2 Postage Evidencing System Provider authorization.

    (d) Approval shall be based upon satisfactory evidence of the applicant's integrity and financial responsibility, commitment to comply with the Postal Service's revenue assurance practices as outlined in section 501.16, and a determination that disclosure to the applicant of Postal Service customer, financial, or other data of a commercial nature necessary to perform the function for which approval is sought would be appropriate and consistent with good business practices within the meaning of 39 U.S.C. 410(c)(2). The Postal Service may condition its approval upon the applicant's agreement to undertakings that would give the Postal Service appropriate assurance of the applicant's ability to meet its obligations under this section, including but not limited to the method and manner of performing certain financial, security, and servicing functions and the need to maintain sufficient financial reserves to guarantee uninterrupted performance of not less than 3 months of operation.

    4. In § 501.16 add paragraph (i) to read as follows:
    § 501.16 PC postage payment methodology.

    (i) Revenue Assurance. To operate PC Postage systems, the provider must support business practices to assure Postal Service revenue and accurate payment from customers. Specifically, the provider is required to notify the customer and adjust the balance in the postage evidencing system or otherwise facilitate postage corrections to address any postage discrepancies as directed by the Postal Service, subject to the applicable notification periods and dispute mechanisms available to customers for these corrections. The Postal Service will supply the provider with the necessary detail to justify the correction and amount of the postage correction to be used in the adjustment process. The provider must supply customers with visibility into the identified postage correction, facilitate a payment adjustment from the customer in the amount equivalent to the identified postage discrepancies to the extent possible, and enable customers to submit electronic disputes of such postage discrepancies to the Postal Service. Further if the Customer does not have funds sufficient to cover the amount of the discrepancies or the postage discrepancies have not been resolved, the provider may be required to temporarily suspend or permanently shut down the customer's ability to print PC Postage as described in the Domestic Mail Manual section 604.4.

    5. In § 501.18, revise paragraph (b)(2) and add paragraph (c)(6) to read as follows:
    § 501.18 Customer information and authorization.

    (b)

    (2) Within five years preceding submission of the information, the customer violated any standard for the care or use of the Postage Evidencing System, including any unresolved identified postage discrepancies that resulted in revocation of that customer's authorization.

    (c)

    (6) The customer has any unresolved postage discrepancies.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17533 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0193; FRL-9930-41-Region 5] Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; Lead Rule Revisions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a request submitted on March 14, 2013, and supplemented on November 17, 2014, by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to revise the state implementation plan (SIP) for lead. The submittal updates Indiana's lead rule at Title 326 of the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC), Article 15. It also amends 326 IAC Article 20, to incorporate some of the provisions of EPA's National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for secondary lead smelters. IDEM made the revisions to increase the stringency and clarity of Indiana's lead SIP rules.

    DATES:

    This direct final rule will be effective September 15, 2015, unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 17, 2015. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0193, by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected].

    3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.

    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0193. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, (312) 886-6031 before visiting the Region 5 office.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

    I. Background: Lead SIP and NESHAP Rules II. Discussion of State Submittal III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background: Lead SIP and NESHAP

    Indiana's SIP rules for lead are contained in two separate parts of the State's regulations. The first is Article 15, which EPA approved on August 17, 1989 (See 54 FR 33894). This provision addresses lead-bearing emissions from processes and fugitive dust from several facilities in Indiana.

    The second regulatory provision is 326 IAC 20-13, which EPA approved on January 15, 2008 (77 FR 2248). This section contains a partial incorporation by reference of EPA's June 13, 1997, NESHAP for secondary lead smelting at 40 CFR part 63, subpart X (62 FR 32209). This includes: 1) 326 IAC 20-13-1(c) [incorporation by reference of 40 CFR part 63, subpart X, NESHAP (June 13, 1997; 62 FR 32209), with exceptions]; 2) 326 IAC 20-13-2(a) [source-specific lead emission limits and filter requirements for secondary lead smelter, Quemetco Incorporated (Quemetco)]; and 3) 326 IAC 20-13-6 [compliance testing requirements].

    On January 5, 2012 (77 FR 556), EPA published amendments to the NESHAP for secondary lead smelting. The final rule revised the standards for secondary lead smelters based on the residual risk and technology reviews required under section 112(f) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7412(f). In addition to revising the emission limits for lead compounds, the amendments to the NESHAP included: Revisions to standards for fugitive emissions; addition of total hydrocarbon, dioxin, and furans emission limits for reverberatory and electric arc furnaces; modification and addition of testing and monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    On March 14, 2013, and supplemented on November 17, 2014, IDEM submitted a request to revise the SIP to update its lead rule at 326 IAC 15. IDEM published several newspaper notices informing the public of the revisions to 326 IAC 15 and 326 IAC 20. A public hearing on these revisions was held on November 7, 2012. There were no comments received.1

    1 It should be noted that IDEM's March 14, 2013 submission contained a Final Attainment Demonstration and technical Support Document for the Muncie, Delaware County, Indiana Lead Nonattainment Area. Indiana withdrew that portion of the submission on November 17, 2014.

    II. Discussion of State Submittal

    Below is a discussion of Indiana's rules, including an identification of any significant changes from the previously approved SIP lead rules.

    Rule 326 IAC 15, Lead

    IDEM made several administrative revisions to Article 15 to clarify the language in the rule. In section 2 of this rule, IDEM removed obsolete rule language for sources no longer in operation.

    In section 3 of this rule, “Control of fugitive lead dust,” IDEM made minor revisions by removing unnecessary language. For instance, the language in this section of the rule instructs sources listed section 2 to submit their fugitive dust control program to “the department of environmental management, office of air management.” IDEM deleted the words “of environmental management, office of air management” in the revised rule language to simply direct the sources to submit its fugitive dust control programs to “the department.”

    In section 4 of this rule, “Compliance,” IDEM made a revision to correct the citation for the appropriate source sampling procedures. Previously, the SIP the source sampling procedures were in 326 IAC 3-2. IDEM has relocated these to 326 IAC 3-6.

    EPA finds these administrative changes approvable in Indiana's SIP.

    Rule 326 IAC 20, Secondary Lead Smelting

    Consistent with amendments to the NESHAP, Indiana added 326 IAC 20-13.1, which incorporates portions of this rule. More specifically, it contains standards for process and fugitive sources at secondary lead smelters, test methods, fugitive dust control, standard operating procedures for baghouses, and monitoring and recordkeeping requirements, which are covered by other portions of 326 IAC 20-13. When IDEM adopted rule 326 IAC 20-13.1, it did not include any exclusions to the rule that would exempt secondary lead smelters from complying with any operating and testing requirements consistent with the NESHAP. Thus, the secondary lead smelter rule at 326 IAC 20-13.1 provides clarity to the applicability, operating, and testing requirements for secondary lead smelters.

    Second, the revisions to the NESHAP revised the lead emission limits that apply to process and process fugitive, and stacks venting fugitive dust emissions. The lead emission limit from process and process fugitive sources was revised from 2.0 milligrams of lead/dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) to 1.0 mg/dscm. The lead emission limit for stacks venting fugitive dust emissions was revised from 2.0 mg/dscm to 0.5 mg/dscm.

    In the current SIP, EPA approved source-specific lead emission limits that apply to the secondary lead smelting facility owned and operated by Quemetco. Quemetco is located in Indianapolis, Indiana. For Quemetco, the lead emission limits that apply to a specific process and process fugitive dust, and stacks venting fugitive dust emissions are already as stringent as the NESHAP. IDEM has relocated these limits to 326 IAC 20-13.1-4.

    In addition to lead emission limits for Quemetco, IDEM included source-specific lead emission limits for the Muncie (Delaware County), Indiana secondary lead smelting facility owned and operated by Exide Technologies (Exide) at 326 IAC 20-13.1-3. The rule contains lead emission limits for specific processes and process fugitive dust lead emissions at Exide. These emission limits are at levels as stringent as the NESHAP.

    When revising the NESHAP for secondary lead smelting, EPA established a facility-wide, flow weighted average, lead emissions limit from stacks of 0.20 mg/dscm. IDEM incorporated this emission limit into 326 IAC 20-13.1-5.

    Indiana has requested that EPA approve all portions of 326 IAC 20-13.1 into the SIP, with the following exceptions:

    (A.) All provisions related to dioxins, furans, total hydrocarbons, in the following provisions:

    (1) 326 IAC 20-13.1-5(d); (2) 326 IAC 20-13.1-5(f); (3) 326 IAC 20-13.1-5(g); (4) 326 IAC 20-13.1-5(i); (5) 326 IAC 20-13.1-5(j); (6) 326 IAC 20-13.1-10(e); (7) 326 IAC 20-13.1-11(d); (8) 326 IAC 20-13.1-11(e); (9) 326 IAC 20-13.1-12(b); (10) 326 IAC 20-13.1-12(c); (11) 326 IAC 20-13.1-12(d); (12) 326 IAC 20-13.1-12(e); (13) 326 IAC 20-13.1-14(e)(2); and (14) 326 IAC 20-13.1-14(e)(3), related to total hydrocarbon.

    (B.) certain “General Provisions” and notification provisions under the Federal NESHAP, identified in 326 IAC 20-13.1-1(d); 326 IAC 20-13.1-13(a),2

    2 These provisions remain federally enforceable by EPA.

    (C.) 326 IAC 20-13.1-15, concerning the affirmative defense to civil penalties for an exceedance of the emissions limit during malfunctions.3

    3 EPA has issued a finding that certain SIP revisions relating to startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) in 36 states are substantially inadequate to meet the Act's requirements. Included in this “SIP call” are “affirmative defense” provisions for SSM events. 80 FR 33480 (June 12, 2015).

    IDEM decided that the changes to 326 IAC Article 20 required the removal of any duplicate or conflicting emission limits or other requirements that presently exist in 326 IAC 20-13 in the transition to the new requirements in 326 IAC 20-13.1, and thus, repealed 326 IAC 20-13.

    EPA finds the lead emission limits for secondary lead smelters in 326 IAC 20-13.1 are more stringent than and will thus strengthen Indiana's current lead SIP. As such, they are approvable.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving Indiana's March 14, 2013, SIP revision request, as supplemented on November 17, 2014, which addresses lead sources in the state. The submission consists of updates and clarifications to Indiana's lead SIP rule at 326 IAC Article 15. It also amends 326 IAC Article 20, to incorporate some of the provisions of EPA's NESHAP for secondary lead smelters at 326 IAC 20-13.1. EPA will take no action on the provision of this rule related to (1) dioxins, furans, and total hydrocarbons, (2) identified NESHAP requirements, and (3) the affirmative defense to civil penalties for an exceedance of the emissions limit during malfunctions. It should be noted that this action in no way affects the continued enforceability of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart X.

    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective September 15, 2015 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by August 17, 2015. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective September 15, 2015.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

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

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 15, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Emissions reporting, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 2, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. Section 52.770, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by: a. Revising the entries under “Article 15. Lead Rules”. b. Revising the entries under “Article 20. Hazardous Air Pollutants”.

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 52.770 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Indiana Regulations Indiana citation Subject Indiana
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA Approval date Notes
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Article 15. Lead Rules Rule 1. Lead Emission Limitations 15-1-2 Source-specific provisions 3/1/2013 7/17/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] 15-1-3 Control of fugitive lead dust 3/1/2013 7/17/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] 15-1-4 Compliance 3/1/2013 7/17/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * Article 20. Hazardous Air Pollutants Rule 10 Bulk Gasoline Distribution Facilities 20-10-1 Applicability; incorporation by reference of federal standards 11/14/1999 5/31/2002, 67 FR 38006 Rule 20-13.1 Secondary Lead Smelters 20-13.1-1 Applicability 3/1/2013 7/17/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] Sections (a)-(c), (e), and (f) 20-13.1-2 Definitions 3/1/2013 7/17/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] 20-13.1-3 Emission limitations; lead standards for Exide Technologies, Incorporation 3/1/2013 7/17/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] 20-13.1-4 Emission limitations; lead standards for Quemetco, Incorporated 3/1/2013 7/17/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] 20-13.1-5 Emission limitations and operating provisions 3/1/2013 7/17/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] Sections (a)-(c), (e), and (h) 20-13.1-6 Total enclosure requirements 3/1/2013 7/17/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] 20-13.1-7 Total enclosure monitoring requirements 3/1/2013 7/17/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] 20-13.1-8 Fugitive dust source requirements 3/1/2013 7/17/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] 20-13.1-9 Bag leak detection system requirements 3/1/2013 7/17/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] 20-13.1-10 Other requirements 3/1/2013 7/17/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] Sections (a)-(d), (f) and (g) 20-13.1-11 Compliance testing 3/1/2013 7/17/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] Sections (a)-(c), and (f) 20-13.1-12 Compliance testing methods 3/1/2013 7/17/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] Section (a) 20-13.1-13 Notification requirements 3/1/2013 7/17/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] Sections (b)-(d) 20-13.1-14 Record keeping and reporting requirements 3/1/2013 7/17/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] Sections (a)-(d), (e)(1), and (e)(4)-(e)(14) *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-17474 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0696; FRL-9929-25-OAR] RIN 2060-AR81 Performance Specification 18—Performance Specifications and Test Procedures for Hydrogen Chloride Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources Correction

    In rule document 2015-16385, appearing on pages 38628 through 38652 in the issue of Tuesday, July 7, 2015, make the following correction:

    On page 38646, in the first column, in the last paragraph, in the sixth line, “+5” should read “±5”.

    [FR Doc. C1-2015-16385 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0396; FRL-9929-95] Thiabendazole; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes a time-limited tolerance for residues of thiabendazole in or on succulent shelled peas.

    This action is associated with the utilization of a crisis exemption under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide as a seed treatment on succulent pea seeds. This regulation establishes a maximum permissible level for residues of thiabendazole in or on this commodity. The time-limited tolerance expires on December 31, 2018.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective July 17, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 15, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0396, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0396 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before September 15, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0396, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and 346a(1)(6), is establishing a time-limited tolerance for the combined residues of the fungicide thiabendazole (2-(4-thiazolyl)benzimidazole) and its metabolite benzimidazole (free and conjugated) in or on pea, succulent shelled at 0.02 parts per million (ppm). This time-limited tolerance expires on December 31, 2018.

    Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA section 18. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on FIFRA section 18 related time-limited tolerances to set binding precedents for the application of FFDCA section 408 and the safety standard to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having received any petition from an outside party.

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

    Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that “emergency conditions exist which require such exemption.” EPA has established regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

    III. Emergency Exemption for Thiabendazole on Succulent Peas and FFDCA Tolerances

    The emergency exemption to treat pea seed with thiabendazole was requested by the State of Idaho (Applicant) because the seed will be treated in Idaho. However, the seed is being planted in Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin, where the emergency conditions exist. Pea growers in these states are faced with a new complex of pea root and foliar disease pathogens that current cultural practices, varieties, and seed treatments do not manage. Pea crop failure in commercial fields has become a severe problem and growers have experienced rapidly increasing yield losses within the pea production area each year for several years.

    The Applicant asserts that an emergency condition exists in accordance with the criteria for approval of an emergency exemption, and has utilized a crisis exemption under FIFRA section 18 to allow the use of thiabendazole on as a seed treatment on succulent peas in Idaho for control of Fusarium and Ascochyta blight in Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin.

    As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption application, EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of thiabendazole in or on succulent peas. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and EPA decided that the necessary tolerance under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to move quickly on the emergency exemption in order to address an urgent non-routine situation and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing this tolerance without notice and opportunity for public comment as provided in FFDCA section 408(l)(6). Although this time-limited tolerance expires on December 31, 2018, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerance remaining in or on succulent peas after that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide was applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a level that was authorized by these time-limited tolerances at the time of that application. EPA will take action to revoke these time-limited tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.

    Because this time-limited tolerance is being approved under emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether thiabendazole meets FIFRA's registration requirements for use on succulent peas or whether permanent tolerances for this use would be appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that this time-limited tolerance decision serves as a basis for registration of thiabendazole by a State for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c). Nor does this tolerance by itself serve as the authority for persons in any State other than Idaho to use this pesticide on the applicable crops under FIFRA section 18 absent the issuance of an emergency exemption applicable within that State. For additional information regarding the emergency exemption for thiabendazole, contact the Agency's Registration Division at the address provided under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

    Consistent with the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure expected as a result of this emergency exemption request and the time-limited tolerance for combined residues of the fungicide thiabendazole (2-(4-thiazolyl)benzimidazole) and its metabolite benzimidazole (free and conjugated) on succulent shelled peas at 0.02 ppm.

    EPA recently updated its dietary risk assessment in connection with a Federal Register rule on September 25, 2014 (79 FR 57450) (FRL-9915-78) establishing permanent tolerances for residues of thiabendazole in or on multiple commodities, and has evaluated the potential increase in exposure resulting from the Section 18 emergency exemption use of thiabendazole on succulent shelled peas (Pisum spp., including English pea, garden pea, and green pea). Based on the supporting residue chemistry data, the combined residues of thiabendazole and benzimidazole in/on succulent shelled peas (Pisum spp., including English pea, garden pea, and green pea) are estimated at 0.01 ppm (i.e., 1/2 limit on quantitation (LOQ) for each analyte) for the Section 18 emergency exemption use. To estimate the contribution to drinking water residues resulting from the emergency seed treatment use on succulent shelled peas, EPA relied on the drinking water residue estimates for the currently registered seed treatment use on wheat at 0.20 lbs. active ingredient/acre (ai/A), which is higher than the 0.083 lbs. ai/A maximum seed treatment use allowed under the emergency exemption. The addition of the emergency use on succulent shelled peas and the assumption of 100% of succulent shelled peas treated did not change the findings of the most recent dietary exposure and risk assessment which are discussed in the Federal Register of September 25, 2014. The Agency's exposure and risk assessment for the emergency use on succulent shelled peas is discussed in greater detail in “Section 18 Emergency Exemption for the Use of Thiabendazole as a Seed Treatment on Succulent Peas in Bonneville and Latah Counties in Idaho,” May 14, 2015, available in docket at the address provided under ADDRESSES.

    Because the Section 18 emergency use of thiabendazole on succulent shelled peas will result in negligible increases in dietary exposure to all subgroups relative to the safety findings reached in the September 25, 2014 Federal Register Notice, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to thiabendazole residues.

    V. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Acceptable enforcement analytical methods are available for thiabendazole and benzimidazole in plant commodities. Four spectrophoto fluoro metric methods for the determination of thiabendazole are published in the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Vol. II, and a high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method with fluorescence detection (FLD) for the determination of benzimidazole (free and conjugated) is identified in the U.S. EPA Index of Residue Analytical Methods under thiabendazole as Study No. 93020.

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has not established a MRL for thiabendazole in or on the requested commodity.

    VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, a time-limited tolerance is established for residues of thiabendazole (2-(4-thiazolyl)benzimidazole) and its metabolite benzimidazole (free and conjugated), calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of thiabendazole, in or on pea, succulent shelled at 0.02 ppm. This tolerance expires on December 31, 2018.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established in accordance with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6), such as the tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.

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

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

    VIII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: July 9, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.242, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    §  180.242 Thiabendazole; tolerances for residues.

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances specified in the following table are established for residues of the thiabendazole, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the specified agricultural commodities, resulting from use of the pesticide pursuant to FIFRA section 18 emergency exemptions. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of thiabendazole (2-(4-thiazolyl)benzimidazole) and its metabolite benzimidazole (free and conjugated), calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of thiabendazole. The tolerances expire on the date specified in the table.

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • Expiration date
    Pea, succulent shelled 0.02 December 31, 2018.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17681 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0585; FRL-9929-27] Distillates, (Fischer-Tropsch), Heavy, C18-C50, Branched, Cyclic and Linear; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of distillates, (Fischer-Tropsch), heavy, C18-C50, branched, cyclic and linear when used as an inert ingredient (solvent, diluent and/or dust suppressant) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest. On behalf of Pennzoil-Quaker State Company, Wagner Regulatory Associates, submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of distillates, (Fischer-Tropsch), heavy, C18-C50, branched, cyclic and linear.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective July 17, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 15, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0585, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0585 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before September 15, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0585, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of February 27, 2013 (78 FR 13295) (FRL-9380-2), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 2E8049) by Wagner Regulatory Associates, P.O. Box 640, 7217 Lancaster Pike, Suite A, Hockessin, DE 19707 on behalf of Pennzoil-Quaker State Company, 700 Milam Street, Houston, TX 77002. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of distillates, (Fischer-Tropsch), heavy, C18-C50, branched, cyclic and linear (CAS Reg. No. 848301-69-9) when used as an inert ingredient as a solvent, diluent and/or dust suppressant in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Wagner Regulatory Associates on behalf of the Pennzoil-Quaker State Company, the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

    IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for distillates, (Fischer-Tropsch), heavy, C18-C50, branched, cyclic and linear including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with distillates, (Fischer-Tropsch), heavy, C18-C50, branched, cyclic and linear follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by distillates, (Fischer-Tropsch), heavy, C18-C50, branched, cyclic and linear (also known as GTL petroleum distillates) as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.

    The acute oral lethal dose (LD)50 is 5,000 milligrams/kilograms (mg/kg) in rats. An acute dermal toxicity study was not conducted. There were no available dermal irritation data. It is not irritating to the rabbit eye. It is not a skin sensitizer in the guinea pig.

    In a 90-day oral toxicity study, GTL petroleum distillates administered by gavage resulted in a statistically significant increase in the incidence and severity of alveolar macrophage accumulations and increased vacuolation of alveolar macrophages in the lung in rats at the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) 200 mg/kg/day. The No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) was 50 mg/kg/day.

    In a 2-generation reproductive toxicity study via gavage in rats, GTL petroleum distillates caused maternal and offspring toxicity at 1,000 mg/kg/day. Toxicity was manifested as chronic interstitial/alveolus inflammation in the lungs. The NOAEL for parental toxicity was 50 mg/kg/day since animals in the mid dose (250 mg/kg/day) group were not analyzed. The reproduction NOAEL was 1,000 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested.

    Based upon subsequent studies conducted to evaluate the lung effects, the Agency determined that the effects observed in the 90-day oral toxicity study and 2-generation reproductive toxicity study were caused by gavage administration error and were not test material (dose) related. In a 28-day oral feeding study in rats at doses up to 1,256 mg/kg/day, no adverse effects were observed. In a prenatal developmental toxicity study in the rat (by oral gavage) at doses up to 1,000 mg/kg/day, no adverse toxicological effects were seen. The results of these two more recent studies alleviated the Agency's concern for the lung effects seen in the 90-day oral toxicity study and the 2-generation reproduction study.

    GTL petroleum distillates were evaluated for mutagenic potential using the Ames test, micronucleus assay, and gene mutation in mammalian cells. These studies were negative for the induction of mutations and aberrations. Therefore, GTL petroleum distillates are considered non-mutagenic.

    A neurotoxicity study was not conducted with GTL petroleum distillates. However, signs of neurotoxicity were not observed in acute toxicity tests at doses up to 5,000 mg/kg body weight (bw)/day. Evidence of neurotoxicity was not observed in the 90-day oral toxicity study in rats and in the 28-day oral feeding study in rats.

    An immunotoxicity study was not conducted with GTL petroleum distillates. However, alveolar macrophage accumulations and increased vacuolation of alveolar macrophages in the lung was observed in rats at >200 mg/kg/day in both the 90-day oral and 2-generation reproduction toxicity studies. However, these effects were determined to be caused by gavage technique error rather than effects attributable to the test substance.

    There are no data specific to the absorption, metabolism, distribution and elimination of GTL petroleum distillates, however, the absorption of other mixtures of normal, branched and cyclic petroleum derived hydrocarbons is inversely related to carbon chain length and is independent of isomeric form, preparation process or type of product. Consequently, when administered orally, Fischer-Tropsch derived hydrocarbons in the range of C18-C50 are likely to be unabsorbed and excreted in the feces.

    Carcinogenicity studies with GTL petroleum distillates are not available for review. However, based on the lack of carcinogenicity of related linear, branched, and cyclic alkanes and the negligible absorption of GTL petroleum distillates, lack of systemic toxicity at the limit dose, lack of mutagenic concerns, GTL petroleum distillates are not expected to be carcinogenic.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    There were no adverse effects in repeat dose toxicity, reproductive, and developmental studies with GTL petroleum distillates at or above limit dose levels to either parental animals or their offspring. Thus, due to the low potential hazard and lack of hazard endpoint, the Agency has determined that a quantitative risk assessment using safety factors applied to a point of departure protective of an identified hazard endpoint is not appropriate for GTL petroleum distillates.

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses and drinking water. In evaluating dietary exposure to GTL petroleum distillates, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Dietary exposure to GTL petroleum distillates can occur when eating food treated with pesticide formulation containing this inert ingredient. Since an endpoint for risk assessment was not identified, a quantitative dietary exposure assessment for GTL petroleum distillates was not conducted.

    2. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).

    GTL petroleum distillates may be used as an inert ingredient in agricultural pesticide products that could result in short- and intermediate-term residential exposure. Residential exposure can occur via dermal and inhalation routes of exposure to residential applicator. Dermal and inhalation exposure can occur from the use of consumer products and foods/food additives containing GTL petroleum distillates. Since an endpoint for risk assessment was not identified, a quantitative residential exposure assessment for GTL petroleum distillates was not conducted.

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

    EPA has not found distillates, (Fischer-Tropsch), heavy, C18-C50, branched, cyclic and linear to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and the category does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that distillates, (Fischer-Tropsch), heavy, C18-C50, branched, cyclic and linear do not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10×) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10×, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    At this time, there is no concern for potential sensitivity to infants and children resulting from exposures to GTL petroleum distillates. There is no reported quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of rat fetuses to in utero exposure to GTL petroleum distillates in developmental toxicity studies in rats. No quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility has been reported following the pre/postnatal exposure to rats in 2-generation reproduction toxicity studies in rats. Given the lack of adverse toxicological effects at limit dose levels, a safety factor analysis has not been used to assess the risk. For these reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    In examining aggregate exposure, EPA takes into account the available and reliable information concerning exposures to pesticide residues in food and drinking water, and non-occupational pesticide exposures. Dietary (food and drinking water) and non-dietary (residential) exposures of concern are not anticipated for GTL petroleum distillates because of its low toxicity based on animal studies showing toxicity at or above the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day. Taking into consideration all available information on GTL petroleum distillates, EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to any population subgroup, including infants and children, will result from aggregate exposure to GTL petroleum distillates under reasonably foreseeable circumstances. Therefore, the establishment of an exemption from tolerance under 40 CFR 180.910 for residues of GTL petroleum distillates when used as an inert ingredient (solvent, diluent and/or dust suppressant) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest is safe under FFDCA section 408.

    V. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

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

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has not established a MRL for distillates, (Fischer-Tropsch), heavy, C18-C50, branched, cyclic and linear.

    VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180. 910 for distillates, (Fischer-Tropsch), heavy, C18-C50, branched, cyclic and linear (CAS Reg. No. 848301-69-9) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent, diluent and/or dust suppressant) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or raw agricultural commodities after harvest.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VIII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: July 2, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.910, add alphabetically the inert ingredient “Distillates, (Fishcher-Tropsch), heavy, C18-C50, branched, cyclic and linear (CAS Reg. No. 848301-69-9)” to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.910 Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert ingredients Limits Uses *         *         *         *         *         *         * Distillates, (Fishcher-Tropsch), heavy, C18-C50, branched, cyclic and linear (CAS Reg. No. 848301-69-9) Solvent, diluent and/or dust suppressant. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-17630 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA- 2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8387] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying the current participation status of a community can be obtained from FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm.

    DATES:

    The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Bret Gates, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4133.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register.

    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

    PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376.

    § 64.6 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community No. Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of flood insurance in community Current effective
  • map date
  • Date certain Federal
  • assistance no longer
  • available
  • in SFHAs
  • Region I Maine: Alna, Town of, Lincoln County 230083 May 6, 2004, Emerg; March 1, 2005, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. July 16, 2015 July 16, 2015. Arrowsic, Town of, Sagadahoc County 230208 October 19, 1979, Emerg; May 15, 1991, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. *......do   do Bar Island, Lincoln County 230916 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Bath, City of, Sagadahoc County 230118 March 27, 1975, Emerg; January 17, 1986, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Boothbay, Town of, Lincoln County 230212 September 8, 1975, Emerg; June 3, 1986, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Boothbay Harbor, Town of, Lincoln County 230213 January 28, 1976, Emerg; June 17, 1986, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Bowdoin, Town of, Sagadahoc County 230913 June 5, 2008, Emerg; September 1, 2008, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Bowdoinham, Town of, Sagadahoc County 230119 April 16, 1981, Emerg; May 19, 1987, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Bremen, Town of, Lincoln County 230214 February 19, 1976, Emerg; February 4, 1987, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Bristol, Town of, Lincoln County 230215 July 15, 1975, Emerg; June 19, 1989, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Damariscotta, Town of, Lincoln County 230216 February 4, 1976, Emerg; September 30, 1988, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Dresden, Town of, Lincoln County 230084 March 28, 1978, Emerg; May 19, 1987, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Edgecomb, Town of, Lincoln County 230217 August 5, 1997, Emerg; October 1, 2002, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Georgetown, Town of, Sagadahoc County 230209 April 11, 1978, Emerg; May 17, 1988, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Haddock Island, Lincoln County 230918 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Hibberts Gore, Township of, Lincoln County 230712 June 24, 1975, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Hungry Island, Lincoln County 230917 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Indian Island, Lincoln County 230919 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Jefferson, Town of, Lincoln County 230085 July 2, 1975, Emerg; October 18, 1988, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Jones Garden Island, Lincoln County 230925 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Killick Stone Island, Lincoln County 230927 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Louds Island, Lincoln County 230915 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Marsh Island, Lincoln County 230921 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Monhegan Plantation, Lincoln County 230511 April 25, 1975, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Newcastle, Town of, Lincoln County 230218 May 18, 1999, Emerg; April 1, 2003, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Nobleboro, Town of, Lincoln County 230219 May 13, 1976, Emerg; November 15, 1989, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Perkins, Township of, Sagadahoc County 230631 April 25, 1975, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Phippsburg, Town of, Sagadahoc County 230120 July 29, 1975, Emerg; August 5, 1986, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Polins Ledges Island, Lincoln County 230929 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Richmond, Town of, Sagadahoc County 230121 July 11, 1975, Emerg; June 4, 1990, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Ross Island, Lincoln County 230922 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Somerville, Town of, Lincoln County 230512 April 25, 1975, Emerg; April 3, 1987, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do South Bristol, Town of, Lincoln County 230220 August 12, 1975, Emerg; July 16, 1990, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Southport, Town of, Lincoln County 230221 October 23, 1975, Emerg; May 17, 1988, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Thief Island, Lincoln County 230920 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Thrumcap Island, Lincoln County 230928 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Topsham, Town of, Sagadahoc County 230122 May 30, 1975, Emerg; October 16, 1987, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Waldoboro, Town of, Lincoln County 230086 April 24, 1975, Emerg; April 3, 1985, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Webber Dry Ledge Island, Lincoln County 230930 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do West Bath, Town of, Sagadahoc County 230211 June 14, 1976, Emerg; August 17, 1981, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Western Egg Rock Island, Lincoln County 230926 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Westport Island, Town of, Lincoln County 230222 November 10, 2011, Emerg; September 1, 2013, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Wiscasset, Town of, Lincoln County 230223 N/A, Emerg; November 20, 1991, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Woolwich, Town of, Sagadahoc County 230210 April 19, 1978, Emerg; July 16, 1990, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Wreck Island, Lincoln County 230924 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Wreck Island Ledge, Lincoln County 230923 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Massachusetts: Acushnet, Town of, Bristol County 250048 April 3, 1981, Emerg; July 19, 1982, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Attleboro, City of, Bristol County 250049 August 16, 1974, Emerg; September 29, 1978, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Berkeley, Town of, Bristol County 250050 February 19, 1974, Emerg; July 3, 1978, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Bridgewater, Town of, Plymouth County 250260 November 28, 1975, Emerg; May 17, 1982, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Dighton, Town of, Bristol County 250052 March 9, 1973, Emerg; June 18, 1980, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do East Bridgewater, Town of, Plymouth County 250264 July 23, 1975, Emerg; July 2, 1981, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Foxborough, Town of, Norfolk County 250239 June 20, 1975, Emerg; December 4, 1979, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Freetown, Town of, Bristol County 250056 August 11, 1975, Emerg; June 18, 1980, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Halifax, Town of, Plymouth County 250265 August 11, 1975, Emerg; July 5, 1982, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Lakeville, Town of, Plymouth County 250271 April 15, 1975, Emerg; June 4, 1980, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Mansfield, Town of, Bristol County 250057 January 28, 1972, Emerg; April 1, 1977, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Middleborough, Town of, Plymouth County 250275 May 28, 1975, Emerg; September 16, 1981, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do North Attleborough, Town of, Bristol County 250059 February 10, 1975, Emerg; September 14, 1979, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Norton, Town of, Bristol County 250060 March 20, 1974, Emerg; June 1, 1979, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Plainville, Town of, Norfolk County 250249 October 29, 1974, Emerg; July 2, 1981, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Raynham, Town of, Bristol County 250061 June 23, 1975, Emerg; July 2, 1980, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Rochester, Town of, Plymouth County 250280 September 8, 1975, Emerg; July 5, 1982, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Seekonk, Town of, Bristol County 250063 July 25, 1975, Emerg; September 5, 1979, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Taunton, City of, Bristol County 250066 July 11, 1973, Emerg; June 18, 1980, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Region III April 25, 1975, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Maryland: Berlin, Town of, Worcester. 240141 March 21, 1978, Emerg; September 18, 1986, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Ocean City, Town of, Worcester County 245207 June 30, 1970, Emerg; June 18, 1971, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Pocomoke City, City of, Worcester County 240084 November 27, 1974, Emerg; September 3, 1980, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Snow Hill, Town of, Worcester County 240086 June 5, 1975, Emerg; May 15, 1980, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Worcester County, Unincorporated Areas. 240083 January 29, 1971, Emerg; February 15, 1979, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Pennsylvania: Bloss, Township of, Tioga County 422094 July 29, 1975, Emerg; March 1, 1987, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Blossburg, Borough of, Tioga County 420817 April 17, 1973, Emerg; July 16, 1980, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Brookfield, Township of, Tioga County 421171 July 29, 1975, Emerg; December 1, 1986, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Charleston, Township of, Tioga County 421172 December 26, 1974, Emerg; December 1, 1986, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Chatham, Township of, Tioga County 421173 July 29, 1975, Emerg; June 1, 1987, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Clymer, Township of, Tioga County 421174 March 13, 1975, Emerg; May 1, 1987, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Covington, Township of, Tioga County 421175 May 16, 1974, Emerg; July 16, 1980, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Deerfield, Township of, Tioga County 421176 February 16, 1984, Emerg; June 1, 1987, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Delmar, Township of, Tioga County 421177 May 2, 1975, Emerg; August 15, 1990, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Duncan, Township of, Tioga County 422095 November 28, 1975, Emerg; March 1, 1987, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Elk, Township of, Tioga County 421154 April 15, 1974, Emerg; May 1, 1987, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Elkland, Borough of, Tioga County 420818 April 18, 1973, Emerg; September 28, 1990, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Farmington, Township of, Tioga County 422097 November 18, 1975, Emerg; December 1, 1986, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Gaines, Township of, Tioga County 421005 January 15, 1974, Emerg; September 1, 1978, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Hamilton, Township of, Tioga County 421178 August 20, 1975, Emerg; December 1, 1986, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Jackson, Township of, Tioga County 420820 July 27, 1973, Emerg; September 1, 1978, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Knoxville, Borough of, Tioga County 420819 August 20, 1975, Emerg; December 1, 1986, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Lawrence, Township of, Tioga County 421006 April 16, 1973, Emerg; September 3, 1980, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Lawrenceville, Borough of, Tioga County 420821 April 4, 1973, Emerg; August 15, 1980, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Liberty, Borough, Tioga County 420822 August 26, 1975, Emerg; March 1, 1987, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Liberty, Township of, Tioga County 422098 August 11, 1975, Emerg; July 1, 1987, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Mansfield, Borough of, Tioga County 420823 March 16, 1973, Emerg; August 24, 1981, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Middlebury, Township of, Tioga County 421179 August 21, 1975, Emerg; July 1, 1987, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Morris, Township of, Tioga County 421155 April 15, 1974, Emerg; September 3, 1980, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Nelson, Township of, Tioga County 421181 June 5, 1975, Emerg; December 1, 1986, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Osceola, Township of, Tioga County 421182 March 18, 1975, Emerg; August 19, 1991, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Putnam, Township of, Tioga County 420824 August 29, 1973, Emerg; July 2, 1980, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Richmond, Township of, Tioga County 420825 August 1, 1973, Emerg; July 2, 1980, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Roseville, Borough of, Tioga County 420826 February 17, 1981, Emerg; August 1, 1987, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Rutland, Township of, Tioga County 422099 March 14, 1975, Emerg; August 1, 1987, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Shippen, Township of, Tioga County 422100 May 23, 1975, Emerg; December 1, 1986, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Sullivan, Township of, Tioga County 421183 December 20, 1974, Emerg; March 1, 1987, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Tioga, Borough of, Tioga County 420827 February 9, 1973, Emerg; May 1, 1988, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Tioga, Township of, Tioga County 420828 April 17, 1973, Emerg; August 15, 1980, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Union, Township of, Tioga County 421184 August 7, 1975, Emerg; February 1, 1987, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Ward, Township of, Tioga County 422101 August 8, 1975, Emerg; July 1, 1987, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Wellsboro, Borough of, Tioga County 420829 December 26, 1973, Emerg; April 15, 1981, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Westfield, Borough of, Tioga County 422093 April 22, 1975, Emerg; March 1, 1987, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Westfield, Township of, Tioga County 421185 March 11, 1975, Emerg; March 1, 1987, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Virginia: Hopewell, City of, Independent City. 510080 May 27, 1975, Emerg; September 5, 1979, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Region IV Florida: Okeechobee, City of, Okeechobee County 120178 July 2, 1975, Emerg; August 26, 1977, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Okeechobee County, Unincorporated Areas. 120177 May 1, 1975, Emerg; February 4, 1981, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do Region IX California: Burlingame, City of, San Mateo County 065019 March 19, 1971, Emerg; September 16, 1981, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do San Mateo, City of, San Mateo County 060328 December 26, 1974, Emerg; March 30, 1981, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do San Mateo County, Unincorporated Areas. 060311 August 27, 1975, Emerg; July 5, 1984, Reg; July 16, 2015, Susp. ......do   do *......do = Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension.
    Dated: June 25, 2015. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17526 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS) 45 CFR Part 101 RIN 0991-AB94 Health Resources Priority and Allocations System (HRPAS) AGENCY:

    Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This interim final rule establishes standards and procedures by which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) may require that certain contracts or orders that promote the national defense be given priority over other contracts or orders. This rule also sets new standards and procedures by which HHS may allocate materials, services, and facilities to promote the national defense. This rule will implement HHS's administration of priorities and allocations actions, and establish the Health Resources Priorities and Allocation System (HRPAS). The HRPAS will cover health resources pursuant to the authority under Section 101(c) of the Defense Production Act as delegated to HHS by Executive Order 13603. Priorities authorities (and other authorities delegated to the Secretary in E.O. 13603, but not covered by this regulation) may be re-delegated by the Secretary. The Secretary retains the authority for allocations.

    DATES:

    Effective July 17, 2015. Comments must be received by September 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0991-AB94 by any of the following methods:

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

    • By email directly to [email protected]

    • By mail or delivery to Cassandra Freeman, Director, Division of Acquisition Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 630G, Washington, DC 20201.

    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements or any other provisions contained in this interim final rule may be submitted to Cassandra Freeman, Director, Division of Acquisition Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 630G, Washington, DC 20201.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The agency program contact is Cassandra R. Freeman, who can be contacted by phone at (202) 205-1855 or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    HHS is publishing this rule to comply with a requirement of the Defense Production Act Reauthorization of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-67) (the “DPAR”). The Defense Production Act Reauthorization of 2009 required that HHS, and all other agencies that previously have been delegated authority to issue rated orders under Executive Order 13603, publish regulations providing standards and procedures for prioritization of contracts and orders and for allocation of materials, services, and facilities to promote the national defense under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. HHS's regulation, along with regulations promulgated by other agencies, will become part of the Federal Priorities and Allocations System.

    The HRPAS is part of the Federal Priorities and Allocations System. The HRPAS has two principal components: priorities and allocations. Under the priorities component, certain contracts between the government and private parties or between private parties for the production or delivery of industrial resources are required to be given priority over other contracts to facilitate expedited delivery in promotion of the U.S. national defense. Under the allocations component, materials, services, and facilities may be allocated to promote the national defense. For both components, the term “national defense”' is defined broadly and can include critical infrastructure protection and restoration, emergency preparedness and response, and recovery from natural and man-made disasters. Priorities authorities (and other authorities delegated to the Secretary in E.O. 13603, but not covered by this regulation) may be re-delegated by the Secretary. The Secretary retains the authority for allocations.

    On September 30, 2009, Congress amended the DPA through the Defense Production Act Reauthorization of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-67) (the “DPAR”). The DPAR directed, all agencies to which the President has delegated priorities and allocations authority under E.O. 13603, publish final rules establishing standards and procedures by which that authority will be used to promote the national defense in both emergency and nonemergency situations. The DPAR also required all such agencies to consult as appropriate and to the extent practicable to develop a consistent and unified Federal priorities and allocations system. This rule is one of several rules to be published to implement the provisions of the DPAR. The final rules of the agencies with DPAR authorities, which are the Departments of Commerce, Energy, Transportation, Health and Human Services, Defense, and Agriculture, will comprise the Federal Priorities and Allocations System (“FPAS”). HHS is publishing this interim final rule in compliance with the provision of the DPAR noted above. HHS's HRPAS provisions are consistent with the FPAS regulations being issued by other agencies. The specific proposals in this rule are more fully described below.

    Analysis of the Priorities and Allocations System General

    Section 101.1 states the purpose of the HRPAS in general terms, as providing guidance and procedures for use of the Defense Production Act (DPA) priorities and allocations authority with respect to health resources necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense.

    Section 101.2 provides guidance and procedures for the use of the DPA priorities and allocation authority with respect to health resources necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense.

    Section 101.3 provides an overview of the HRPAS program eligibility.

    This section describes briefly aspects of the HRPAS, including the certain programs for military and health resources under the DPA.

    Definitions

    The “Definitions” section appears in § 101.20 and provides definitions for the relevant regulatory terms.

    Placement of Rated Orders

    Section 101.30, “Delegation of Authority,” describes fully the President's delegations to HHS. It also describes, in general terms, the items subject to HHS's jurisdiction. This provision facilitates public understanding of the role that each delegate agency plays in the overall priorities and allocations system.

    Section 101.31, “Priority ratings,” describes the two possible levels of priority and program identification symbols used when rating an order.

    Section 101.32, “Elements of a rated order,” describes in detail what each rated order must include, consisting of the appropriate priority rating, delivery date information, signatures and required language. HHS seeks comment specifically on the text of this provision.

    Section 101.33, “Acceptance and rejection of rated orders,” details when orders placed by HHS may or must be accepted or rejected, and what the procedures are for both, including customer notification requirements and certain exceptions for emergency preparedness conditions. Specifically, persons must accept or reject rated orders for emergency response-related approved programs within fifteen (15) working days (or ten (10) working days, depending on the circumstance). HHS requires the shorter time limit in for the recipient to respond to a rated order issued in connection with an emergency response because such orders would require a shorter time frame to ensure delivery in time to provide disaster assistance, emergency response or similar activities. HHS believes that the exigent circumstances inherent in such activities justify requiring a shorter response time.

    Section 101.34, “Preferential scheduling,” details procedures in cases where a person receives two or more conflicting rated orders. If a person is unable to resolve such a conflict, this section refers them to special priorities assistance as provided in §§ 101.40 through 101.44.

    Section 101.35, “Extension of priority ratings,” requires a person to use rated orders with suppliers to obtain items or services needed to fill a rated order. This allows the priority rating to “extend” from contractor to subcontractor to supplier throughout the entire procurement chain.

    Section 101.36, “Changes or cancellations of priority ratings and rated orders,” provides procedures for changing or cancelling a rated order, both by HHS or other persons who placed the order.

    Section 101.37, “Use of rated orders,” lists what items must be rated. It also introduces the use of certain program identification symbols used when rated orders may be combined, and details the procedures for combining two or more rated orders, as well as rated and unrated orders.

    Section 101.38, “Limitations on placing rated orders,” prohibits the use of rated orders in a list of specific circumstances. This section also specifically excludes the use of rated orders for resources within the resource jurisdiction of agencies other than HHS with DPA priorities and allocations authority.

    Special Priorities Assistance

    Section 101.40, “General provisions” illustrates when and how HHS can provide special priorities assistance, and provides specific HHS points of contact and the form to be used for requesting such assistance. Special priorities assistance may generally be requested for any reason.

    Section 101.41, “Requests for priority rating authority,” directs persons to the Department of Commerce to request rating authority for production or construction equipment. This section also identifies circumstances in which HHS may authorize a person to place a priority rating on an order to a supplier in advance of the issuance of a rated prime contract, and lists factors HHS will consider in deciding whether to grant this authority.

    Section 101.42, “Examples of assistance,” provides a number of examples of when special priorities assistance may be provided, although it may generally be provided for any reason.

    Section 101.43 lists the criteria for granting assistance, and § 101.44 lists instances in which assistance may not be provided (i.e., to secure a price advantage).

    Allocation Actions

    Sections 101.50 through 101.52 describe allocations and contain procedures for the use of allocation orders. Specifically, allocation orders will be used only if priorities authority will not provide a sufficient supply of material, services or facilities for national defense requirements, or when use of priorities authority will cause a severe and prolonged disruption in the supply of resources available to support normal U.S. economic activities. Allocation orders will not be used to ration materials or services at the retail level. Allocation orders will be distributed equitably among the suppliers of the resource(s) being allocated and will not require any person to relinquish a disproportionate share of the civilian market. The standards set forth in §§ 101.50 through 101.52 provide reasonable assurance that allocation orders will be used only in situations where the circumstances justify such orders.

    Section 101.53 describes the three types of allocation orders that HHS might issue. The types of allocation orders are a set-aside, an allocation directive, and an allotment. A set-aside is an official action that will require a person to reserve resource capacity in anticipation of receipt of rated orders. An allocation directive is an official action that will require a person to take or refrain from taking certain actions in accordance with its provisions (an allocation directive can require a person to stop or reduce production of an item, prohibit the use of selected items, divert supply of one type of product to another, or to supply a specific quantity, size, shape, and type of an item within a specific time period). An allotment is an official action that will specify the maximum quantity of an item authorized for use in a specific program or application. HHS is requiring these three types of allocation orders because it believes that, collectively, they describe the types of actions that might be taken in any situation in which allocation is justified.

    Section 101.54, “Elements of an allocation order,” sets forth the minimum elements of an allocation order. Those elements are:

    • A detailed description of the required allocation action(s);

    • Specific start and end calendar dates for each required allocation action;

    • The written signature on a manually placed order, or the digital signature or name on an electronically placed order, of the Secretary of Health and Human Services or his/her designee, which certifies that the order is authorized under this regulation and that the order is consistent with requirements of the regulation;

    • A statement that reads in substance: This is an allocation order certified for national defense use. [Insert the legal name of the person receiving the order] is required to comply with this order, in accordance with the provisions of the Health Resources Priorities and Allocations System regulation (45 CFR 101.1), which is part of the Federal Priorities and Allocations System; and

    • A current copy of the HRPAS.

    HHS rquires these elements because it believes that they provide a proper balance between the need for standards to permit the public to recognize and understand an allocation order if one is issued, and the expectation that any actual allocation orders will have to be tailored to meet unforeseeable circumstances. The language of § 101.54 precludes HHS from including additional information in an allocation order if circumstances warrant doing so.

    Section 101.55, “Mandatory acceptance of allocation orders,” requires that an allocation order must be accepted if a person is capable of fulfilling the order. If a person is unable to comply fully with the required actions specific in an allocation order, the person must notify HHS immediately, explain the extent to which compliance is possible, and give reasons why full compliance is not possible. This section also states that a person may not discriminate against an allocation order in any manner, such as by charging higher prices or imposing terms and conditions different than what the person imposed on contracts or orders for the same resource(s) that were received prior to receiving the allocation order. Section 101.55 makes it clear to the public that the limited circumstances and emergency situations that trigger issuance of an allocation order require immediate response from the public in order to address the situation in an expedient fashion.

    Section 101.56, “Changes or cancellations of an allocation order” provides that an allocation order may be changed or cancelled by HHS.

    Official Actions

    Section 101.60, “General Provisions”, provides HHS and overview regarding implementation of this subpart.

    Section 101.61, “Rating Authorizations,” defines a rating authorization as an official action granting specific priority rating authority, and refers persons to § 101.21 to request such priority rating authority.

    Section 101.62, “Directives,” defines a directive as an official action that requires a person to take or refrain from taking certain actions in accordance with its provisions. This section details directive compliance for the public.

    Section 101.63, “Letters and Memoranda of Understanding,” defines a letter or memorandum of understanding as an official action that may be issued in resolving special priorities assistance cases to reflect an agreement reached by all parties, and explains its use.

    Compliance

    Section 101.70, “General Provisions” details the official actions which may be taken by HHS to enforce or administer the DPA and other applicable statutes.

    Section 101.71, “Audits and investigations,” details the procedures for official examinations of books, records, documents, and other writings and information to ensure that the provisions of the DPA and other applicable statutes, this regulation, and official actions have been properly followed. An audit or investigation may also include interviews and a systems evaluation to detect problems or failures in the implementation of this regulation.

    Section 101.72, “Compulsory process,” provides that if a person refuses to permit a duly authorized HHS representative to have access to necessary information, HHS may seek the institution of appropriate legal action, including ex parte application for an inspection warrant, in any forum of appropriate jurisdiction.

    Sections 101.73 and 101.74 both provide procedures for notification of failure to comply with the DPA, these regulations, or HHS official actions, and describe the resulting penalties and remedies.

    Section 101.75, “Compliance Conflicts,” requires that persons immediately contact HHS should compliance with the DPA, these regulations, or an official action prevent a person from filling a rated order or from complying with another provision of the DPA and other applicable statutes, this regulation, or an official action.

    Adjustments, Exceptions, and Appeals

    Section 101.80, “Adjustments, Exceptions, and Appeals,” reflects the procedures necessary to request an adjustment or exception to the provisions of these regulations.

    Section 101.81, “Appeals,” provides the procedures, timing and contact information for appealing a decision made on a request for relief in the previous section.

    Miscellaneous Provisions

    Section 101.90, “Protection against claims,” provides that a person shall not be held liable for damages or penalties for any act or failure to act resulting directly or indirectly from compliance with any part of this regulation or an official action.

    Section 101.91, “Records and reports,” requires that persons are required to make and preserve for at least three years, accurate and complete records of any transaction covered by this regulation or an official action. Various requirements and procedures regarding such records are provided in this section. The confidentiality provisions of the DPA governing the submission of information pursuant to the DPA and these regulations are also set forth.

    Section 101.92, “Applicability of this regulation and official actions,” provides the jurisdictional applicability of this regulation and official actions.

    Section 101.93, “Communications,” provides a HHS point of contact for all communications regarding this regulation.

    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

    HHS has examined the impacts of the interim final rule under Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). This rule is not an economically significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    A summary of the cost benefit analysis is provided below.

    This rule sets criteria under which HHS (or agencies to which HHS delegates HHS's DPA authority to issue rated orders) will authorize prioritization of certain orders or contracts as well as criteria under which HHS will issue orders allocating resources or production facilities. To date, HHS has minimally exercised its prioritization authority for contracts during the response to H1N1 influenza in 2009 to order ancillary supplies in support of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Immunization Program, and not exercised its existing allocations authority.

    Under prioritization, HHS or its Delegate Agency designates certain orders as one of two possible priority levels. Once so designated, such orders are referred to as “rated orders.” The recipient of a rated order must give it priority over an unrated order or an order with a lower priority rating. A recipient of a rated order may place orders at the same priority level with suppliers and subcontractors for supplies and services necessary to fulfill the recipient's rated order and the suppliers and subcontractors must treat the request from the rated order recipient as a rated order with the same priority level as the original rated order. The rule does not require recipients to fulfill rated orders if the price or terms of sale are not consistent with the price or terms of sale of similar non-rated orders. The rule provides a defense from any liability for damages or penalties for actions taken in or inactions required for, compliance with the rule.

    The impact of HRPAS on private companies receiving priority orders is expected to vary. However, in most cases, there is likely to be no economic impact in filling priority orders because it will generally just be changing the timing in which orders are completed.

    HRPAS is expected to have an overall positive impact on the U.S. public and industry by maintaining and restoring the production, processing, storage, and distribution of health resources during times of both emergency and nonemergency conditions to promote national defense and to prevent civilian hardship in the food marketplace. While HHS has not yet administered HRPAS under DPA authority, the continued use of DPAS by the Department of Defense proves the utility of a priorities and allocations system.

    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. HHS reviewed this interim final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and has determined that this rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Number of Small Entities

    Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this interim final rule on small entities, a small business, as described in the Small Business Administration's Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes (January 2012 Edition), has a maximum annual revenue of $33.5 million and a maximum of 1,500 employees (for some business categories, these number are lower). A small governmental jurisdiction is a government of a city, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000. A small organization is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

    This rule sets criteria under which HHS (or agencies to which HHS delegates HHS's DPA authority to issue rated orders) will authorize prioritization of certain orders or contracts as well as criteria under which HHS will issue orders allocating resources or production facilities. Because the rule affects commercial transactions, HHS believes that small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions are unlikely to be affected by this rule. To date, HHS has minimally exercised its prioritization authority for contracts during the response to 2009 H1N1 influenza to order ancillary supplies in support of HHS/CDC's Immunization Program, and not exercised its existing allocations authority. As such, HHS has no basis on which to estimate the number of small businesses that may be affected by this rule.

    Impact

    The interim final rule has two principle components: prioritization and allocation. Under prioritization, HHS, or its Delegate Agency, designates certain orders as one of two possible priority levels. Once so designated, such orders are referred to as “rated orders.” The recipient of a rated order must give it priority over an unrated order or an order with a lower priority rating. A recipient of a rated order may place orders at the same priority level with suppliers and subcontractors for supplies and services necessary to fulfill the recipient's rated order and the suppliers and subcontractors must treat the request from the rated order recipient as a rated order with the same priority level as the original rated order. The rule does not require recipients to fulfill rated orders if the price or terms of sale are not consistent with the price or terms of sale of similar non-rated orders. The rule provides a defense from any liability for damages or penalties for actions taken in or inactions required for, compliance with the rule.

    Although rated orders could require a firm to fill one order prior to filling another, they will not necessarily require a reduction in the total volume of orders. The regulations will also not require the recipient of a rated order to reduce prices or provide rated orders with more favorable terms than a similar non-rated order. Under these circumstances, the economic effects on the rated order recipient of substituting one order for another are likely to be mutually offsetting, resulting in no net economic impact.

    Allocations could be used to control the general distribution of materials or services in the civilian market. Specific allocation actions that HHS might take are as follows:

    Set-aside: an official action that requires a person to reserve resource capacity in anticipation of receipt of rated orders.

    Allocations directive: an official action that requires a person to take or refrain from taking certain actions in accordance with its provisions. An allocation directive can require a person to stop or reduce production of an item, prohibit the use of selected items, or divert supply of one type of product to another, or to supply a specific quantity, size, shape, and type of an item within a specific time period.

    Allotment: an official action that specifies the maximum quantity of an item authorized for use in a specific program or application.

    HHS has not yet taken any actions under its existing allocations authority, and any future allocations actions would be used only in extraordinary circumstances. As required by section 101(b) of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, (50 U.S.C. App. Sec. 2071), hereinafter “DPA,” and by Section 201(a) (3) of Executive Order 13603, HHS may implement allocations only if the Secretary of Health and Human Services makes, and the President approves, and determines that there is a scarcity of critical materials and services essential to the national defense, and that the requirements of the national defense cannot otherwise be met without a significant interruption of normal distribution of these essential materials or services in the civilian marketplace that would cause considerable hardship. “National defense” covers programs for military and health resources production or construction, military or critical infrastructure assistance to any foreign nation, homeland security, stockpiling, space, and any related activity. Such term includes emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5195 et seq.) and critical infrastructure protection and restoration.

    Any allocation actions taken by HHS must assure that small business concerns shall be accorded, to the extent practicable; a fair share of the materials or services covered by the allocation action in proportion to the share received by small business concerns under normal conditions, giving such special consideration as may be possible to emerging business concerns, 50 U.S.C. App. Sec. 2151(e).

    Conclusion

    Although HHS cannot determine precisely the number of small entities that will be affected by this rule, HHS believes that the overall impact on such entities will not be significant. In most instances, rated contracts will be fulfilled in addition to other (unrated) contracts and, in some instances might actually increase the total amount of business of the firm that receives a rated contract.

    Because allocations can be imposed only after an agency determination confirmed by the President, and because HHS has not yet used its allocations authority that has existed since passage of the Defense Production Act in 1950, one can expect allocations will be ordered only in particular circumstances. Any allocation actions would also have to comply with Section 701(e) of DPA (50 U.S.C. app. 2151(e)), which provides that small business concerns be accorded, to the extent practicable, a fair share of the material, including services, in proportion to the share received by such business concerns under normal conditions, giving such special consideration as may be possible to emerging business concerns.

    Therefore, HHS believes that the requirement for a Presidential determination and the provisions of section 701 of the DPA indicate that any impact on small business will not be significant.

    Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services certifies that this interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    This interim final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement for Request for Special Priorities Assistance, which is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. Data required will include: name, location, contact information, items for which the applicant is requesting assistance on, quantity, and delivery date. Public reporting burden for submission of a request for special priorities assistance or priority rating authority is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

    Public comment is sought regarding: whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to (see [email protected], Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 630G, Washington, DC 20201).

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

    Title: Request for Special Priorities Assistance for HRPAS.

    OMB Control Number: To be provided by OMB.

    Type of Request: New Collection.

    Abstract: HRPAS will efficiently place priority ratings on contracts or orders of health resources within its authority as specified in the Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950, as amended, when necessary. Applicants (Government agencies or private individuals with a role in emergency preparedness, response, and recovery functions) will request authorization from HHS to place a rating on a contract for items to support national defense activities. Applicants must supply, at time of request, their name, location, contact information, items for which the applicant is requesting assistance on, quantity, and delivery date. Applicants can submit the request by mail or fax.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 minutes per response.

    Type of Respondents: Individuals, businesses, and Agencies with responsibilities for emergency preparedness and response.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 100.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondents: 0.95.

    Estimated Total Number of Respondents: 95.

    Estimate Total Annual Burden Hours on Respondents: 50 hours.

    We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us: (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of HHS, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of HHS's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments received in response to this document, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.

    D. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    HHS reviewed this rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), which imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. HHS determined that the rule will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government.

    E. Review Under Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year for State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates as defined by Title II of UMRA for State, local, or Tribal governments or for the private sector; therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

    F. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Health and Human Services has approved publication of this interim final rule.

    List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 101

    Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry, Government contracts, National defense, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Strategic and critical materials.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, HHS adds part 101 to subchapter A of title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

    PART 101—DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS Subpart A—Health Resources Priorities and Allocations System General Sec. 101.1 Purpose. 101.2 Priorities and allocations authority. 101.3 Program eligibility. Subpart B—Definitions 101.20 Definitions. Subpart C—Placement of Rated Orders 101.30 Delegations of authority. 101.31 Priority ratings. 101.32 Elements of a rated order. 101.33 Acceptance and rejection of rated orders. 101.34 Preferential scheduling. 101.35 Extension of priority ratings. 101.36 Changes or cancellations of priority ratings and rated orders. 101.37 Use of rated orders. 101.38 Limitations on placing rated orders. Subpart D—Special Priorities Assistance 101.40 General provisions. 101.41 Requests for priority rating authority. 101.42 Examples of assistance. 101.43 Criteria for assistance. 101.44 Instances where assistance may not be provided. Subpart E—Allocation Actions 101.50 Policy. 101.51 General procedures. 101.52 Controlling the general distribution of a material in the civilian market. 101.53 Types of allocation orders. 101.54 Elements of an allocation order. 101.55 Mandatory acceptance of an allocation order. 101.56 Changes or cancellations of an allocation order. Subpart F—Official Actions 101.60 General provisions. 101.61 Rating Authorizations. 101.62 Directives. 101.63 Letters and Memoranda of Understanding. Subpart G—Compliance 101.70 General provisions. 101.71 Audits and investigations. 101.72 Compulsory process. 101.73 Notification of failure to comply. 101.74 Violations, penalties, and remedies. 101.75 Compliance conflicts. Subpart H—Adjustments, Exceptions, and Appeals 101.80 Adjustments or exceptions. 101.81 Appeals. Subpart I—Miscellaneous Provisions 101.90 Protection against claims. 101.91 Records and reports. 101.92 Applicability of this part and official actions. 101.93 Communications. Authority:

    50 U.S.C. App. 2061-2171;

    Subpart A—Health Resources Priorities and Allocations System General
    § 101.1 Purpose.

    This section provides guidance and procedures for use of Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950 Section 101(a) priorities and allocations authority with respect to all forms of health resources necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense. The guidance and procedures in this part are consistent with the guidance and procedures provided in other regulations that, as a whole, form the Federal Priorities and Allocations System. Guidance and procedures for use of the DPA priorities and allocations authority with respect to other types of resources are provided for: food resources, food resource facilities, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer in7 CFR part 700; energy supplies in 10 CFR part 217; all forms of civil transportation in 49 CFR part 33; water resources in 32 CFR part 555; and all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials in the Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) regulation (15 CFR part 700).

    § 101.2 Priorities and allocations authority.

    (a) Section 201 of E.O. 13603, delegates the President's authority under Section 101 of the DPA. DPA Section 101 provides the President with authority to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts and orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense to a number of agencies. Section 201 of E.O. 13603 delegates the President's authority to specific agencies as follows:

    (1) The Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

    (2) The Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

    (3) The Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

    (4) The Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

    (5) The Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

    (6) The Secretary of Commerce for all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

    (b) Section 202(a) of E.O. 13603 states that the priorities and allocations authority delegated in Section 201 of that Executive Order may be used only to support programs that have been determined in writing as necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense:

    (1) By the Secretary of Defense with respect to military production and construction, military assistance to foreign nations, military use of civil transportation, stockpiles managed by the Department of Defense, space, and directly related activities;

    (2) By the Secretary of Energy with respect to energy production and construction, distribution and use, and directly related activities; and

    (3) By the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to all other national defense programs, including civil defense and continuity of Government.

    (c) Section 201(e) of E.O. 13603 provides that each department that is delegated priorities and allocations authority under Section 201(a) of E.O. 13603 may use this authority with respect to control of the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market only after:

    (1) Making the finding required under Section 101(b) of the DPA; and

    (2) The finding has been approved by the President.

    (d) Priorities authorities (and other authorities delegated to the Secretary in E.O. 13603 but not covered by this regulation) have been re-delegated by the Secretary to the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (the “ASPR”). The Secretary retains the authority for allocations.

    § 101.3 Program eligibility.

    Certain programs to promote the national defense are eligible for priorities and allocations support. These include programs for military and energy production or construction, military or critical infrastructure assistance to any foreign nation, deployment and sustainment of military forces, homeland security, stockpiling, space, and any directly related activity. Other eligible programs include emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to Title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act [42 U.S.C. 5195 et seq.] and critical infrastructure protection and restoration.

    Subpart B—Definitions
    § 101.20 Definitions.

    The following definitions pertain to all sections of this part:

    Allocation means the control of the distribution of materials, services, or facilities for a purpose deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense.

    Allocation order means an official action to control the distribution of materials, services, or facilities for a purpose deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense.

    Allotment means an official action that specifies the maximum quantity or use of a material, service, or facility authorized for a specific use to promote the national defense.

    Approved program means a program determined by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, or the Secretary of Homeland Security to be necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, in accordance with Section 202 of E.O. 13603.

    Construction means the erection, addition, extension, or alteration of any building, structure, or project, using materials or products which are to be an integral and permanent part of the building, structure, or project. Construction does not include maintenance and repair.

    Critical infrastructure means any systems and assets, whether physical or cyber-based, so vital to the United States that the degradation or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on national security, including, but not limited to, national economic security and national public health or safety.

    Defense Production Act or DPA means the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.).

    Delegate agency means a Federal government agency authorized by delegation from HHS to place priority ratings on contracts or orders needed to support approved programs.

    Directive means an official action that requires a person to take or refrain from taking certain actions in accordance with its provisions.

    Emergency preparedness means all those activities and measures designed or undertaken to prepare for or minimize the effects of a hazard upon the civilian population, to deal with the immediate emergency conditions which would be created by the hazard, and to effectuate emergency repairs to, or the emergency restoration of, vital utilities and facilities destroyed or damaged by the hazard. “Emergency Preparedness” includes the following:

    (1) Measures to be undertaken in preparation for anticipated hazards (including the establishment of appropriate organizations, operational plans, and supporting agreements, the recruitment and training of personnel, the conduct of research, the procurement and stockpiling of necessary materials and supplies, the provision of suitable warning systems, the construction or preparation of shelters, shelter areas, and control centers, and, when appropriate, the nonmilitary evacuation of the civilian population).

    (2) Measures to be undertaken during a hazard (including the enforcement of passive defense regulations prescribed by duly established military or civil authorities, the evacuation of personnel to shelter areas, the control of traffic and panic, and the control and use of lighting and civil communications).

    (3) Measures to be undertaken following a hazard (including activities for firefighting; rescue; emergency medical, health and sanitation services; monitoring for specific dangers of special weapons; unexploded bomb reconnaissance; essential debris clearance; emergency welfare measures; and immediately essential emergency repair or restoration of damaged vital facilities).

    Facilities includes all types of buildings, structures, or other improvements to real property (but excluding farms, churches or other places of worship, and private dwelling houses), and services relating to the use of any such building, structure, or other improvement.

    Farm equipment means equipment, machinery, and repair parts manufactured for use on farms in connection with the production or preparation for market use of Food resources.

    Fertilizer means any product or combination of products that contain one or more of the elements—nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium—for use as a plant nutrient.

    Food resources means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption. “Food Resources” also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.

    Food resource facilities means plants, machinery, vehicles (including on-farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including cold storage) of food resources, and for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer (excluding transportation thereof).

    Hazard means an emergency or disaster resulting from:

    (1) A natural disaster; or

    (2) An accidental or human-caused event.

    Health resources means drugs, biological products, medical devices, materials, facilities, health supplies, services and equipment required to diagnose, mitigate or prevent the impairment of, improve, treat, cure, or restore the physical or mental health conditions of the population.

    Homeland Security includes efforts—

    (1) To prevent terrorist attacks within the United States;

    (2) To reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism;

    (3) To minimize damage from a terrorist attack in the United States; and

    (4) To recover from a terrorist attack in the United States.

    Industrial Resource means all materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials, but not including: Food resources, food resource facilities, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer; all forms of health resources; all forms of civil transportation; and water resources.

    Item means any raw, in process, or manufactured material, article, commodity, supply, equipment, component, accessory, part, assembly, or product of any kind, technical information, process, or service.

    Maintenance and Repair and Operating Supplies (MRO) includes the following—

    (1) “Maintenance” is the upkeep necessary to continue any plant, facility, or equipment in working condition.

    (2) “Repair” is the restoration of any plant, facility, or equipment to working condition when it has been rendered unsafe or unfit for service by wear and tear, damage, or failure of parts.

    (3) “Operating Supplies” are any resources carried as operating supplies according to a person's established accounting practice. “Operating Supplies” may include hand tools and expendable tools, jigs, dies, fixtures used on production equipment, lubricants, cleaners, chemicals and other expendable items.

    (4) MRO does not include items produced or obtained for sale to other persons or for installation upon or attachment to the property of another person, or items required for the production of such items; items needed for the replacement of any plant, facility, or equipment; or items for the improvement of any plant, facility, or equipment by replacing items which are still in working condition with items of a new or different kind, quality, or design.

    Materials includes—

    (1) Any raw materials (including minerals, metals, and advanced processed materials), commodities, articles, components (including critical components), products, and items of supply;

    (2) Any technical information or services ancillary to the use of any such materials, commodities, articles, components, products, or items; and

    (3) Natural resources such as oil and gas.

    National defense means programs for military and health resources production or construction, military or critical infrastructure assistance to any foreign nation, homeland security, stockpiling, space, and any directly related activity. Such term includes emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5195, et seq.) and critical infrastructure protection and restoration.

    Official action means an action taken by the Department of Health and Human Services or another resource agency under the authority of the Defense Production Act, E.O.13603, and this part or another regulation under the Federal Priorities and Allocations System. Such actions include the issuance of Rating Authorizations, Directives, Set Asides, Allotments, Letters of Understanding, Memoranda of Understanding, and Demands for Information, Inspection Authorizations, and Administrative Subpoenas.

    Person includes an individual, corporation, partnership, association, or any other organized group of persons, or legal successor or representative thereof, or any State or local government or agency thereof.

    Rated order means a prime contract, a subcontract, or a purchase order in support of an approved program issued in accordance with the provisions of this part.

    Resource agency means any agency delegated priorities and allocations authority as specified in § 101.2.

    Secretary means the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

    Services includes any effort that is needed for or incidental to—

    (1) The development, production, processing, distribution, delivery, or use of an industrial resource or a critical technology item;

    (2) The construction of facilities;

    (3) The movement of individuals and property by all modes of civil transportation; or

    (4) Other national defense programs and activities.

    Set-aside means an official action that requires a person to reserve materials, services, or facilities capacity in anticipation of the receipt of rated orders.

    Stafford Act means title VI (Emergency Preparedness) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5195-5197h).

    Water resources means all usable water, from all sources, within the jurisdiction of the United States, that can be managed, controlled, and allocated to meet emergency requirements, except “water resources does not include usable water that qualifies as “food resources”.

    Subpart C—Placement of Rated Orders
    § 101.30 Delegations of authority.

    The priorities and allocations authorities of the President under Title I of the DPA with respect to all forms of health resources have been delegated to the Secretary under E.O. 13603. The Secretary may re-delegate the Secretary's priority rating activities under the DPA though the allocations authority provided to the Secretary is not subject to delegation per Section 201(e) of E.O. 13603.

    § 101.31 Priority ratings.

    (a) Levels of priority. (1) There are two levels of priority established by Federal Priorities and Allocations System regulations, identified by the rating symbols “DO” and “DX”.

    (2) All DO-rated orders have equal priority with each other and take precedence over unrated orders. All DX-rated orders have equal priority with each other and take precedence over DO-rated orders and unrated orders. (For resolution of conflicts among rated orders of equal priority, see § 101.34(c).)

    (3) In addition, a Directive regarding priority treatment for a given item issued by the Department of Health and Human Services for that item takes precedence over any DX-rated order, DO-rated order, or unrated order, as stipulated in the Directive. (For a full discussion of Directives, see § 101. 62.

    (b) Program identification symbols. Program identification symbols, such as “DO-HR”, or “DX-HR”, indicate which approved program is being supported by a rated order. Programs may be approved under the procedures of E.O. 13603 Section 202 at any time. Program identification symbols do not connote any priority.

    (c) Priority ratings. A priority rating consists of the rating symbol—DO or DX—and the program identification symbol, such as DO-HR or DX-HR.

    § 101.32 Elements of a rated order.

    Each rated order must include:

    (a) The appropriate priority rating (e.g. DO-HR or DX-HR);

    (b) A required delivery date or dates. The words “immediately” or “as soon as possible” do not constitute a delivery date. A “requirements contract”, “basic ordering agreement”, “prime vendor contract”, or similar procurement document bearing a priority rating may contain no specific delivery date or dates and may provide for the furnishing of items or service from time-to-time or within a stated period against specific purchase orders, such as “calls”, “requisitions”, and “delivery orders”. These purchase orders must specify a required delivery date or dates and are to be considered as rated as of the date of their receipt by the supplier and not as of the date of the original procurement document;

    (c) The written signature on a manually placed order, or the digital signature or name on an electronically placed order, of an individual authorized to sign rated orders for the person placing the order. The signature or use of the name certifies that the rated order is authorized under this part and that the requirements of this part are being followed; and

    (d)(1) A statement that reads in substance:

    This is a rated order certified for national defense use, and you are required to follow all the provisions of the Health Resources Priorities and Allocations System regulation at 45 CFR part 101.

    (2) If the rated order is placed in support of emergency preparedness requirements and expedited action is necessary and appropriate to meet these requirements, the following sentences should be added following the statement set forth in paragraph (d)(1) of this section:

    (i) This rated order is placed for the purpose of emergency preparedness. It must be accepted or rejected within two (2) days after receipt of the order if:

    (A) The order is issued in response to a hazard that has occurred; or

    (B) If the order is issued to prepare for an imminent hazard, as specified in HRPAS § 101.33(e).

    (ii) [Reserved]

    § 101.33 Acceptance and rejection of rated orders.

    (a) Mandatory acceptance. (1) Except as otherwise specified in this section, a person shall accept every rated order received and must fill such orders regardless of any other rated or unrated orders that have been accepted.

    (2) A person shall not discriminate against rated orders in any manner such as by charging higher prices or by imposing different terms and conditions than for comparable unrated orders.

    (b) Mandatory rejection. Unless otherwise directed by HHS for a rated order involving all forms of health resources:

    (1) A person shall not accept a rated order for delivery on a specific date if unable to fill the order by that date. However, the person must inform the customer of the earliest date on which delivery can be made and offer to accept the order on the basis of that date. Scheduling conflicts with previously accepted lower rated or unrated orders are not sufficient reason for rejection under this section.

    (2) A person shall not accept a DO-rated order for delivery on a date which would interfere with delivery of any previously accepted DO- or DX-rated orders. However, the person must offer to accept the order based on the earliest delivery date otherwise possible.

    (3) A person shall not accept a DX-rated order for delivery on a date which would interfere with delivery of any previously accepted DX-rated orders, but must offer to accept the order based on the earliest delivery date otherwise possible.

    (4) If a person is unable to fill all of the rated orders of equal priority status received on the same day, the person must accept, based upon the earliest delivery dates, only those orders which can be filled, and reject the other orders. For example, a person must accept order A requiring delivery on December 15 before accepting order B requiring delivery on December 31. However, the person must offer to accept the rejected orders based on the earliest delivery dates otherwise possible.

    (c) Optional rejection. Unless otherwise directed by HHS for a rated order involving all forms of health resources, rated orders may be rejected in any of the following cases as long as a supplier does not discriminate among customers:

    (1) If the person placing the order is unwilling or unable to meet regularly established terms of sale or payment;

    (2) If the order is for an item not supplied or for a service not capable of being performed;

    (3) If the order is for an item or service produced, acquired, or provided only for the supplier's own use for which no orders have been filled for two years prior to the date of receipt of the rated order. If, however, a supplier has sold some of these items or provided similar services, the supplier is obligated to accept rated orders up to that quantity or portion of production or service, whichever is greater, sold or provided within the past two years;

    (4) If the person placing the rated order, other than the U.S. Government, makes the item or performs the service being ordered;

    (5) If acceptance of a rated order or performance against a rated order would violate any other regulation, official action, or order of the HHS issued under the authority of the DPA or another relevant statute.

    (d) Customer notification requirements. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, a person must accept or reject a rated order in writing or electronically within fifteen (15) working days after receipt of a DO-rated order and within ten (10) working days after receipt of a DX-rated order. If the order is rejected, the person must give reasons in writing or electronically for the rejection.

    (2) If a person has accepted a rated order and subsequently finds that shipment or performance will be delayed, the person must notify the customer immediately, give the reasons for the delay, and advise of a new shipment or performance date. If notification is given verbally, written or electronic confirmation must be provided within five (5) working days.

    (e) Exception for emergency response conditions. If the rated order is placed for the purpose of emergency preparedness, a person must accept or reject a rated order and transmit the acceptance or rejection in writing or in an electronic format within two (2) days after receipt of the order if:

    (1) The order is issued in response to a hazard that has occurred; or

    (2) The order is issued to prepare for an imminent hazard.

    § 101.34 Preferential scheduling.

    (a) A person must schedule operations, including the acquisition of all needed production items or services, in a timely manner to satisfy the delivery requirements of each rated order. Modifying production or delivery schedules is necessary only when required delivery dates for rated orders cannot otherwise be met.

    (b) DO-rated orders must be given production preference over unrated orders, if necessary to meet required delivery dates, even if this requires the diversion of items being processed or ready for delivery or services being performed against unrated orders. Similarly, DX-rated orders must be given preference over DO-rated orders and unrated orders. (Examples: If a person receives a DO-rated order with a delivery date of June 3 and if meeting that date would mean delaying production or delivery of an item for an unrated order, the unrated order must be delayed. If a DX-rated order is received calling for delivery on July 15 and a person has a DO-rated order requiring delivery on June 2 and operations can be scheduled to meet both deliveries, there is no need to alter production schedules to give any additional preference to the DX-rated order.)

    (c) Conflicting rated orders. (1) If a person finds that delivery or performance against any accepted rated orders conflicts with the delivery or performance against other accepted rated orders of equal priority status, the person shall give precedence to the conflicting orders in the sequence in which they are to be delivered or performed (not to the receipt dates). If the conflicting orders are scheduled to be delivered or performed on the same day, the person shall give precedence to those orders that have the earliest receipt dates.

    (2) If a person is unable to resolve rated order delivery or performance conflicts under this section, the person should promptly seek special priorities assistance as provided in §§ 101.40 through 101.44. If the person's customer objects to the rescheduling of delivery or performance of a rated order, the customer should promptly seek special priorities assistance as provided in §§ 101.40 through 101.44. For any rated order against which delivery or performance will be delayed, the person must notify the customer as provided in § 101.33(d)(2).

    (d) If a person is unable to purchase needed production items in time to fill a rated order by its required delivery date, the person must fill the rated order by using inventoried production items. A person who uses inventoried items to fill a rated order may replace those items with the use of a rated order as provided in § 101.37(b).

    § 101.35 Extension of priority ratings.

    (a) A person must use rated orders with suppliers to obtain items or services needed to fill a rated order. The person must use the priority rating indicated on the customer's rated order, except as otherwise provided in this part or as directed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

    (b) The priority rating must be included on each successive order placed to obtain items or services needed to fill a customer's rated order. This continues from contractor to subcontractor to supplier throughout the entire procurement chain.

    § 101.36 Changes or cancellations of priority ratings and rated orders.

    (a) The priority rating on a rated order may be changed or canceled by:

    (1) An official action of HHS; or

    (2) Written notification from the originating agency that placed the rated order.

    (b) If an unrated order is amended so as to make it a rated order, or a DO rating is changed to a DX rating, the supplier must give the appropriate preferential treatment to the order as of the date the change is received by the supplier.

    (c) An amendment to a rated order that significantly alters a supplier's original production or delivery schedule shall constitute a new rated order as of the date of its receipt. The supplier must accept or reject the amended order according to the provisions of § 101.33.

    (d) The following amendments do not constitute a new rated order: a change in shipping destination; a reduction in the total amount of the order; an increase in the total amount of the order which has negligible impact upon deliveries; a minor variation in size or design; or a change which is agreed upon between the supplier and the customer.

    (e) If a person no longer needs items or services to fill a rated order, any rated orders placed with suppliers for the items or services, or the priority rating on those orders, must be canceled.

    (f) When a priority rating is added to an unrated order, or is changed or canceled, all suppliers must be promptly notified in writing.

    § 101.37 Use of rated orders.

    (a) A person must use rated orders to obtain:

    (1) Items which will be physically incorporated into other items to fill rated orders, including that portion of such items normally consumed or converted into scrap or by-products in the course of processing;

    (2) Containers or other packaging materials required to make delivery of the finished items against rated orders;

    (3) Services, other than contracts of employment, needed to fill rated orders; and

    (4) MRO needed to produce the finished items to fill rated orders.

    (b) A person may use a rated order to replace inventoried items (including finished items) if such items were used to fill rated orders, as follows:

    (1) The order must be placed within 90 days of the date of use of the inventory.

    (2) A DO rating and the program identification symbol indicated on the customer's rated order must be used on the order. A DX rating may not be used even if the inventory was used to fill a DX-rated order.

    (3) If the priority ratings on rated orders from one customer or several customers contain different program identification symbols, the rated orders may be combined. In this case, the program identification symbol “H1” must be used (i.e., DO-H1).

    (c) A person may combine DX- and DO-rated orders from one customer or several customers if the items or services covered by each level of priority are identified separately and clearly. If different program identification symbols are indicated on those rated orders of equal priority, the person must use the program identification symbol “H1” (i.e., DO-H1 or DX-H1).

    (d) Combining rated and unrated orders. (1) A person may combine rated and unrated order quantities on one purchase order provided that:

    (i) The rated quantities are separately and clearly identified; and

    (ii) The four elements of a rated order, as required by § 101.32, are included on the order with the statement required in § 101.32(d) modified to read in substance:

    This purchase order contains rated order quantities certified for national defense use, and you are required to follow all applicable provisions of the Health Resources Priorities and Allocations System regulations at 45 CFR part 101, subpart A, only as it pertains to the rated quantities.

    (2) A supplier must accept or reject the rated portion of the purchase order as provided in § 101.33 and give preferential treatment only to the rated quantities as required by this part. This part may not be used to require preferential treatment for the unrated portion of the order.

    (3) Any supplier who believes that rated and unrated orders are being combined in a manner contrary to the intent of this part or in a fashion that causes undue or exceptional hardship may submit a request for adjustment or exception under § 101.80.

    (e) A person may place a rated order for the minimum commercially procurable quantity even if the quantity needed to fill a rated order is less than that minimum. However, a person must combine rated orders as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, if possible, to obtain minimum procurable quantities.

    (f) A person is not required to place a priority rating on an order for less than one-half of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (as established in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) (see 48 CFR 2.101) or in other authorized acquisition regulatory or management systems) whichever amount is greater, provided that delivery can be obtained in a timely fashion without the use of the priority rating.

    § 101.38 Limitations on placing rated orders.

    (a) General limitations. (1) A person may not place a DO- or DX-rated order unless entitled to do so under this part.

    (2) Rated orders may not be used to obtain:

    (i) Delivery on a date earlier than needed;

    (ii) A greater quantity of the item or services than needed, except to obtain a minimum procurable quantity. Separate rated orders may not be placed solely for the purpose of obtaining minimum procurable quantities on each order;

    (iii) Items or services in advance of the receipt of a rated order, except as specifically authorized by HHS (see § 101.41(c) for information on obtaining authorization for a priority rating in advance of a rated order);

    (iv) Items that are not needed to fill a rated order, except as specifically authorized by HHS, or as otherwise permitted by this part; or

    (v) Any of the following items unless specific priority rating authority has been obtained from HHS, a Delegate Agency, or the Department of Commerce, as appropriate:

    (A) Items for plant improvement, expansion, or construction, unless they will be physically incorporated into a construction project covered by a rated order; and

    (B) Production or construction equipment or items to be used for the manufacture of production equipment. [For information on requesting priority rating authority, see § 101.41.]

    (vi) Any items related to the development of chemical or biological warfare capabilities or the production of chemical or biological weapons, unless such development or production has been authorized by the President or the Secretary of Defense. This provision does not however prohibit the use of the priority and allocations authority to acquire or produce qualified countermeasures that are necessary to treat, identify, or prevent harm from any biological or chemical agent that may cause a public health emergency affecting national security.

    (b) Jurisdictional limitations. Unless authorized by the resource agency with jurisdiction, the provisions of this part are not applicable to the following resources:

    (1) Food resources, food resource facilities, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer (Resource agency with jurisdiction—Department of Agriculture);

    (2) Energy supplies (Resource agency with jurisdiction—Department of Energy);

    (3) All forms of civil transportation (Resource agency with jurisdiction—Department of Transportation);

    (4) Water resources (Resource agency with jurisdiction—Department of Defense/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers); and

    (5) Communications services (Resource agency with jurisdiction— National Communications System under E.O. 12472 of April 3, 1984).

    Subpart D—Special Priorities Assistance
    § 101.40 General provisions.

    (a) The six regulations that comprise the Federal Priorities and Allocations System are designed to be largely self-executing. However, from time-to-time production or delivery problems will arise in connection with rated orders for health resources as covered under this part. In this event, a person should immediately contact the Secretary for guidance, as specified in § 101.93. If the HHS is unable to resolve the problem or to authorize the use of a priority rating and believes additional assistance is warranted, HHS may forward the request to another agency with resource jurisdiction, or the Department of Commerce, as appropriate, for action. Special priorities assistance is provided to alleviate problems that do arise.

    (b) Special priorities assistance is available for any reason consistent with this part. Generally, special priorities assistance is provided to expedite deliveries, resolve delivery conflicts, place rated orders, locate suppliers, or to verify information supplied by customers and vendors. Special priorities assistance may also be used to request rating authority for items that are not normally eligible for priority treatment.

    (c) A request for special priorities assistance or priority rating authority must be submitted to the Secretary, as specified in § 101.93.

    § 101.41 Requests for priority rating authority.

    (a) If a rated order is likely to be delayed because a person is unable to obtain items or services not normally rated under this part, the person may request the authority to use a priority rating in ordering the needed items or services.

    (b) Rating authority for production or construction equipment. (1) A request for priority rating authority for production or construction equipment must be submitted to the U.S. Department of Commerce on Form BIS-999.

    (2) When the use of a priority rating is authorized for the procurement of production or construction equipment, a rated order may be used either to purchase or to lease such equipment. However, in the latter case, the equipment may be leased only from a person engaged in the business of leasing such equipment or from a person willing to lease rather than sell.

    (c) Rating authority in advance of a rated prime contract. (1) In certain cases and upon specific request, the Department of Health and Human Services, in order to promote the national defense, may authorize a person to place a priority rating on an order to a supplier in advance of the issuance of a rated prime contract. In these instances, the person requesting advance-rating authority must obtain sponsorship of the request from the Department of Health and Human Services or the appropriate Delegate Agency. The person shall also assume any business risk associated with the placing of rated orders in the event the rated prime contract is not issued.

    (2) The person must state the following in the request:

    It is understood that the authorization of a priority rating in advance of our receiving a rated prime contract from the Department of Health and Human Services and our use of that priority rating with our suppliers in no way commits the Department of Health and Human Services or any other government agency to enter into a contract or order or to expend funds. Further, we understand that the Federal Government shall not be liable for any cancellation charges, termination costs, or other damages that may accrue if a rated prime contract is not eventually placed and, as a result, we must subsequently cancel orders placed with the use of the priority rating authorized as a result of this request.

    (3) In reviewing requests for rating authority in advance of a rated prime contract, HHS will consider, among other things, the following criteria:

    (i) The probability that the prime contract will be awarded;

    (ii) The impact of the resulting rated orders on suppliers and on other authorized programs;

    (iii) Whether the contractor is the sole source;

    (iv) Whether the item being produced has a long lead time;

    (v) The time period for which the rating is being requested.

    (4) The HHS may require periodic reports on the use of the rating authority granted under paragraph (c) of this section.

    (5) If a rated prime contract is not issued, the person shall promptly notify all suppliers who have received rated orders pursuant to the advanced rating authority that the priority rating on those orders is cancelled.

    § 101.42 Examples of assistance.

    (a) While special priorities assistance may be provided for any reason in support of this part, it is usually provided in situations where:

    (1) A person is experiencing difficulty in obtaining delivery against a rated order by the required delivery date; or

    (2) A person cannot locate a supplier for an item or service needed to fill a rated order.

    (b) Other examples of special priorities assistance include:

    (1) Ensuring that rated orders receive preferential treatment by suppliers;

    (2) Resolving production or delivery conflicts between various rated orders;

    (3) Assisting in placing rated orders with suppliers;

    (4) Verifying the urgency of rated orders; and

    (5) Determining the validity of rated orders.

    § 101.43 Criteria for assistance.

    Requests for special priorities assistance should be timely, i.e., the request has been submitted promptly and enough time exists for HHS, or the agencies to which HHS has delegated its authority to issue rated orders (the “Delegate Agency”), or the Department of Commerce for industrial resources to effect a meaningful resolution to the problem, and must establish that:

    (a) There is an urgent need for the item; and

    (b) The applicant has made a reasonable effort to resolve the problem.

    § 101.44 Instances where assistance may not be provided.

    Special priorities assistance is provided at the discretion of HHS or the Delegate Agency when it is determined that such assistance is warranted to meet the objectives of this part. Examples where assistance may not be provided include situations when a person is attempting to:

    (a) Secure a price advantage;

    (b) Obtain delivery prior to the time required to fill a rated order;

    (c) Gain competitive advantage;

    (d) Disrupt an industry apportionment program in a manner designed to provide a person with an unwarranted share of scarce items; or

    (e) Overcome a supplier's regularly established terms of sale or conditions of doing business.

    Subpart E—Allocation Actions
    § 101.50 Policy.

    (a) It is the policy of the Federal Government that the allocations authority under title I of the Defense Production Act may:

    (1) Only be used when there is insufficient supply of a material, service, or facility to satisfy national defense supply requirements through the use of the priorities authority or when the use of the priorities authority would cause a severe and prolonged disruption in the supply of materials, services, or facilities available to support normal U.S. economic activities; and

    (2) Not be used to ration materials or services at the retail level.

    (b) Allocation orders, when used, will be distributed equitably among the suppliers of the materials, services, or facilities being allocated and not require any person to relinquish a disproportionate share of the civilian market.

    § 101.51 General procedures.

    When HHS plans to execute its allocations authority to address a supply problem within its resource jurisdiction, the Department shall develop a plan that includes the following information:

    (a) A copy of the Secretary's finding for Presidential approval made, in accordance with Section 201(e) of E.O. 13603, that the material or materials at issue are scarce and critical materials essential to the national defense and that the requirements for national defense for such material(s) cannot otherwise be met without creating a significant dislocation of the normal distribution of such material(s) in to such a degree as to create appreciable hardship.

    (b) A detailed description of the situation to include any unusual events or circumstances that have created the requirement for an allocation action;

    (c) A statement of the specific objective(s) of the allocation action;

    (d) A list of the materials, services, or facilities to be allocated;

    (e) A list of the sources of the materials, services, or facilities that will be subject to the allocation action;

    (f) A detailed description of the provisions that will be included in the allocation orders, including the type(s) of allocation orders, the percentages or quantity of capacity or output to be allocated for each purpose, and the duration of the allocation action (i.e., anticipated start and end dates);

    (g) An evaluation of the impact of the proposed allocation action on the civilian market; and

    (h) Proposed actions, if any, to mitigate disruptions to civilian market operations.

    § 101.52 Controlling the general distribution of a material in the civilian market.

    (a) No allocation action taken by HHS may be used to control the general distribution of a material in the civilian market, unless the Secretary has:

    (1) Made a written finding that:

    (i) Such material is a scarce and critical material essential to the national defense, and

    (ii) The requirements of the national defense for such material cannot otherwise be met without creating a significant dislocation of the normal distribution of such material in the civilian market to such a degree as to create appreciable hardship;

    (2) Submitted the finding for the President's approval through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; and

    (3) The President has approved the finding.

    (b) The requirements of this section may not delegated by the Secretary (See E.O. 13603, Section 201(e)).

    § 101.53 Types of allocation orders.

    There are three types of allocation orders available for communicating allocation actions. These are:

    (a) Set-aside. An official action that requires a person to reserve materials, services, or facilities capacity in anticipation of the receipt of rated orders;

    (b) Directive. An official action that requires a person to take or refrain from taking certain actions in accordance with its provisions. A directive can require a person to: Stop or reduce production of an item; prohibit the use of selected materials, services, or facilities; or divert the use of materials, services, or facilities from one purpose to another; and

    (c) Allotment. An official action that specifies the maximum quantity of a material, service, or facility authorized for a specific use.

    § 101.54 Elements of an allocation order.

    Each allocation order must include:

    (a) A detailed description of the required allocation action(s);

    (b) Specific start and end calendar dates for each required allocation action;

    (c) The written signature on a manually placed order, or the digital signature or name on an electronically placed order, of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The signature or use of the name certifies that the order is authorized under this part and that the requirements of this part are being followed;

    (d) A statement that reads in substance:

    This is an allocation order certified for national defense use. [Insert the legal name of the person receiving the order] is required to comply with this order, in accordance with the provisions of the Health Resources Priorities and Allocations System regulation (45 CFR part 101, subpart A), which is part of the Federal Priorities and Allocations System; and

    (e) A current copy of the Health Resources Priorities and Allocations System regulation (subpart A of this part).

    § 101.55 Mandatory acceptance of an allocation order.

    (a) Except as otherwise specified in this section (see paragraph (c) of this section), a person shall accept and comply with every allocation order received.

    (b) A person shall not discriminate against an allocation order in any manner such as by charging higher prices for materials, services, or facilities covered by the order or by imposing terms and conditions for contracts and orders involving allocated materials, services, or facilities that differ from the person's terms and conditions for contracts and orders for the materials, services, or facilities prior to receiving the allocation order.

    (c) If a person is unable to comply fully with the required action(s) specified in an allocation order, the person must notify the Secretary, as specified in § 101.93, immediately, explain the extent to which compliance is possible, and give the reasons why full compliance is not possible. If notification is given verbally, written or electronic confirmation must be provided within five (5) working days. Such notification does not release the person from complying with the order to the fullest extent possible, until the person is notified by the Department of Health and Human Services that the order has been changed or cancelled.

    § 101.56 Changes or cancellations of an allocation order.

    An allocation order may be changed or canceled by an official action of the Department of Health and Human Services.

    Subpart F—Official Actions
    § 101.60 General provisions.

    (a) HHS may take specific official actions to implement the provisions of this subpart.

    (b) These official actions include, but are limited to, Rating Authorizations, Directives, and Memoranda of Understanding (See § 101.20.)

    § 101.61 Rating Authorizations.

    (a) A Rating Authorization is an official action granting specific priority rating authority that:

    (1) Permits a person to place a priority rating on an order for an item or service not normally ratable under this part; or

    (2) Authorizes a person to modify a priority rating on a specific order or series of contracts or orders.

    (b) To request priority rating authority, see § 101.41.

    § 101.62 Directives.

    (a) A Directive is an official action that requires a person to take or refrain from taking certain actions in accordance with its provisions.

    (b) A person must comply with each Directive issued. However, a person may not use or extend a Directive to obtain any items from a supplier, unless expressly authorized to do so in the Directive.

    (c) A Priorities Directive takes precedence over all DX-rated orders, DO-rated orders, and unrated orders previously or subsequently received, unless a contrary instruction appears in the Directive.

    (d) An Allocations Directive takes precedence over all Priorities Directives, DX-rated orders, DO-rated orders, and unrated orders previously or subsequently received, unless a contrary instruction appears in the Directive.

    § 101.63 Letters and Memoranda of Understanding.

    (a) A Letter or Memorandum of Understanding is an official action that may be issued in resolving special priorities assistance cases to reflect an agreement reached by all parties including HHS, the Department of Commerce (if applicable), a Delegate Agency (if applicable), the supplier, and the customer).

    (b) A Letter or Memorandum of Understanding is not used to alter scheduling between rated orders, to authorize the use of priority ratings, to impose restrictions under this part. Rather, Letters or Memoranda of Understanding are used to confirm production or shipping schedules that do not require modifications to other rated orders.

    Subpart G—Compliance
    § 101.70 General provisions.

    (a) HHS may take specific official actions for any reason necessary or appropriate to the enforcement or the administration of the Defense Production Act and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action. Such actions include Administrative Subpoenas, Demands for Information, and Inspection Authorizations.

    (b) Any person who places or receives a rated order or an allocation order must comply with the provisions of this part.

    (c) Willful violation of the provisions of title I or section 705 of the Defense Production Act and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action of the Department of Health and Human Services is a criminal act, punishable as provided in the Defense Production Act and other applicable statutes, and as set forth in § 101.74.

    § 101.71 Audits and investigations.

    (a) Audits and investigations are official examinations of books, records, documents, other writings and information to ensure that the provisions of the Defense Production Act and other applicable statutes, this part, and official actions have been properly followed. An audit or investigation may also include interviews and a systems evaluation to detect problems or failures in the implementation of this part.

    (b) When undertaking an audit or investigation, HHS shall:

    (1) Define the scope and purpose in the official action given to the person under investigation; and

    (2) Have ascertained that the information sought or other adequate and authoritative data are not available from any Federal or other responsible agency.

    (c) In administering this part, HHS may issue the following documents that constitute official actions:

    (1) Administrative Subpoenas. An Administrative Subpoena requires a person to appear as a witness before an official designated by HHS to testify under oath on matters of which that person has knowledge relating to the enforcement or the administration of the Defense Production Act and other applicable statutes, this part, or official actions. An Administrative Subpoena may also require the production of books, papers, records, documents and physical objects or property.

    (2) Demands for Information. A Demand for Information requires a person to furnish to a duly authorized representative of HHS any information necessary or appropriate to the enforcement or the administration of the Defense Production Act and other applicable statutes, this part, or official actions.

    (3) Inspection Authorizations. An Inspection Authorization requires a person to permit a duly authorized representative of HHS to interview the person's employees or agents, to inspect books, records, documents, other writings, and information, including electronically-stored information, in the person's possession or control at the place where that person usually keeps them or otherwise, and to inspect a person's property when such interviews and inspections are necessary or appropriate to the enforcement or the administration of the Defense Production Act and related statutes, this part, or official actions.

    (d) The production of books, records, documents, other writings, and information will not be required at any place other than where they are usually kept, if, prior to the return date specified in the Administrative Subpoena or Demand for Information, a duly authorized official of HHS is furnished with copies of such material that are certified under oath to be true copies. As an alternative, a duly authorized representative of HHS may enter into a stipulation with a person as to the content of the material.

    (e) An Administrative Subpoena, Demand for Information, or Inspection Authorization, shall include the name, title, or official position of the person to be served, the evidence sought to be adduced, and its general relevance to the scope and purpose of the audit, investigation, or other inquiry. If employees or agents are to be interviewed; if books, records, documents, other writings, or information are to be produced; or if property is to be inspected; the Administrative Subpoena, Demand for Information, or Inspection Authorization will describe them with particularity.

    (f) Service of documents shall be made in the following manner:

    (1) Service of a Demand for Information or Inspection Authorization shall be made personally, or by Certified Mail-Return Receipt Requested at the person's last known address. Service of an Administrative Subpoena shall be made personally. Personal service may also be made by leaving a copy of the document with someone at least 18 years old at the person's last known dwelling or place of business.

    (2) Service upon other than an individual may be made by serving a partner, corporate officer, or a managing or general agent authorized by appointment or by law to accept service of process. If an agent is served, a copy of the document shall be mailed to the person named in the document.

    (3) Any individual 18 years of age or over may serve an Administrative Subpoena, Demand for Information, or Inspection Authorization. When personal service is made, the individual making the service shall prepare an affidavit as to the manner in which service was made and the identity of the person served, and return the affidavit, and in the case of subpoenas, the original document, to the issuing officer. In case of failure to make service, the reasons for the failure shall be stated on the original document.

    § 101.72 Compulsory process.

    (a) If a person refuses to permit a duly authorized representative of the Department of Health and Human Services to have access to any premises or to the source of information necessary to the administration or the enforcement of the Defense Production Act and other applicable statutes, this part, or official actions, HHS, through its authorized representative may seek compulsory process. Compulsory process means the institution of appropriate legal action, including ex parte application for an inspection warrant or its equivalent, in any forum of appropriate jurisdiction.

    (b) Compulsory process may be sought in advance of an audit, investigation, or other inquiry, if, in the judgment of the Secretary there is reason to believe that a person will refuse to permit an audit, investigation, or other inquiry, or that other circumstances exist which make such process desirable or necessary.

    § 101.73 Notification of failure to comply.

    (a) At the conclusion of an audit, investigation, or other inquiry, or at any other time, HHS may inform the person in writing of HHS's position regarding that person's non-compliance with the requirements of the DPA and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action.

    (b) In cases where HHS determines that failure to comply with the provisions of the DPA and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action was inadvertent, the person may be informed in writing of the particulars involved and the corrective action to be taken. Failure to take corrective action may then be construed as a willful violation of DPA and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action.

    § 101.74 Violations, penalties, and remedies.

    (a) Willful violation of the provisions of the DPA, the priorities provisions of the Selective Service Act and related statutes (when applicable), this part, or an official action, is a crime and upon conviction, a person may be punished by fine or imprisonment, or both. The maximum penalties provided by the DPA are a $10,000 fine, or one year in prison, or both. The maximum penalties provided by the Selective Service Act and related statutes are a $50,000 fine, or three years in prison, or both.

    (b) The Government may also seek an injunction from a court of appropriate jurisdiction to prohibit the continuance of any violation of, or to enforce compliance with, the DPA, this part, or an official action.

    (c) In order to secure the effective enforcement of the DPA and other applicable statutes, this part, and official actions, the following are prohibited:

    (1) No person may solicit, influence or permit another person to perform any act prohibited by, or to omit any act required by, the DPA and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action.

    (2) No person may conspire or act in concert with any other person to perform any act prohibited by, or to omit any act required by, the DPA and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action.

    (3) No person shall deliver any item if the person knows or has reason to believe that the item will be accepted, redelivered, held, or used in violation of the DPA and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action. In such instances, the person must immediately notify HHS that, in accordance with this provision, delivery has not been made.

    § 101.75 Compliance conflicts.

    If compliance with any provision of the DPA and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action would prevent a person from filling a rated order or from complying with another provision of the DPA and other applicable statutes, this part, or an official action, the person must immediately notify the Secretary, as specified in § 101.93, for resolution of the conflict.

    Subpart H—Adjustments, Exceptions, and Appeals
    § 101.80 Adjustments or exceptions.

    (a) A person may submit a request to the Secretary for an adjustment or exception on the ground that:

    (1) A provision of this part or an official action results in an undue or exceptional hardship on that person not suffered generally by others in similar situations and circumstances; or

    (2) The consequences of following a provision of this part or an official action are contrary to the intent of the DPA and other applicable statutes, or this part.

    (b) Each request for adjustment or exception must be in writing and contain a complete statement of all the facts and circumstances related to the provision of this part or official action from which adjustment is sought and a full and precise statement of the reasons why relief should be provided.

    (c) The submission of a request for adjustment or exception shall not relieve any person from the obligation of complying with the provision of this part or official action in question while the request is being considered unless such interim relief is granted in writing by the Secretary or the Secretary's designated representative.

    (d) A decision of the Secretary or the Secretary's designated representative under this section may be appealed to the Secretary (For information on the appeal procedure, see § 101.81.)

    § 101.81 Appeals.

    (a) Any person whose request for adjustment or exception was denied by the Secretary or the Secretary's designated representative under Section. 94a.80, may appeal to the Secretary who, through the Secretary's designated representative, shall review and reconsider the denial.

    (b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, an appeal must be received by the Secretary no later than 45 days after receipt of a written notice of denial. After this 45 day period, an appeal may be accepted at the discretion of the Secretary.

    (2) For requests for adjustment or exception involving rated orders placed for the purpose of emergency preparedness (see § 101.33(e)), an appeal must be received by the Secretary, no later than 15 days after receipt of a written notice of denial. Contract performance under the order shall not be stayed pending resolution of the appeal.

    (c) Each appeal must be in writing and contain a complete statement of all the facts and circumstances related to the action appealed from and a full and precise statement of the reasons the decision should be modified or reversed.

    (d) In addition to the written materials submitted in support of an appeal, an appellant may request, in writing, an opportunity for an informal hearing. This request may be granted or denied at the discretion of the Secretary or the Secretary's designated representative.

    (e) When a hearing is granted, the Secretary may designate an HHS employee to act as the Secretary's representative and hearing officer to conduct the hearing and to prepare a report. The hearing officer shall determine all procedural questions and impose such time or other limitations deemed reasonable. In the event that the hearing officer decides that a printed transcript is necessary, all expenses shall be borne by the appellant.

    (f) When determining an appeal, the Secretary may consider all information submitted during the appeal as well as any recommendations, reports, or other relevant information and documents available to HHS or consult with any other persons or groups.

    (g) The submission of an appeal under this section shall not relieve any person from the obligation of complying with the provision of this part or official action in question while the appeal is being considered unless such relief is granted in writing by the Secretary.

    Subpart I—Miscellaneous Provisions
    § 101.90 Protection against claims.

    A person shall not be held liable for damages or penalties for any act or failure to act resulting directly or indirectly from compliance with any provision of this part, or an official action, notwithstanding that such provision or action shall subsequently be declared invalid by judicial or other competent authority.

    § 101.91 Records and reports.

    (a) Persons are required to make and preserve for at least three years, accurate and complete records of any transaction covered by this part or an official action.

    (b) Records must be maintained in sufficient detail to permit the determination, upon examination, of whether each transaction complies with the provisions of this part or any official action. However, this part does not specify any particular method or system to be used.

    (c) Records required to be maintained by this part must be made available for examination on demand by duly authorized representatives of HHS as provided in § 101.71.

    (d) In addition, persons must develop, maintain, and submit any other records and reports to HHS that may be required for the administration of the DPA and other applicable statutes, and this part.

    (e) DPA Section 705(d), as implemented by E.O. 13603, provides that information obtained under this section which the Secretary deems confidential, or with reference to which a request for confidential treatment is made by the person furnishing such information, shall not be published or disclosed unless the Secretary determines that the withholding of this information is contrary to the interest of the national defense. Information required to be submitted to HHS in connection with the enforcement or administration of the DPA, this part, or an official action, is deemed to be confidential under DPA Section 705(d) and shall be handled in accordance with applicable Federal law.

    § 101.92 Applicability of this part and official actions.

    (a) This part and all official actions, unless specifically stated otherwise, apply to transactions in any state, territory, or possession of the United States and the District of Columbia.

    (b) This part and all official actions apply not only to deliveries to other persons but also include deliveries to affiliates and subsidiaries of a person and deliveries from one branch, division, or section of a single entity to another branch, division, or section under common ownership or control.

    (c) This part and its schedules shall not be construed to affect any administrative actions taken by HHS, or any outstanding contracts or orders placed pursuant to any of the regulations, orders, schedules or delegations of authority previously issued by HHS pursuant to authority granted to HHS, by the President under the DPA and E.O. 13603. Such actions, contracts, or orders shall continue in full force and effect under this part unless modified or terminated by proper authority.

    § 101.93 Communications.

    All communications concerning this part, including requests for copies of the part and explanatory information, requests for guidance or clarification, and requests for adjustment or exception shall be addressed to the Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and Washington, DC.

    Dated: March 3, 2015. Sylvia M. Burwell, Secretary. Editorial note:

    This document was received by the Office of the Federal Register on July 8, 2015.

    [FR Doc. 2015-17047 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 140214145-5582-02] RIN 0648-BD81 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitats of the South Atlantic Region; Amendment 8 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS issues this final rule to implement Amendment 8 to the Fishery Management Plan for Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitats of the South Atlantic Region (FMP) (Amendment 8), as prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). This final rule expands portions of the northern and western boundaries of the Oculina Bank Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) (Oculina Bank HAPC) and allows transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC by fishing vessels with rock shrimp onboard; modifies vessel monitoring system (VMS) requirements for rock shrimp fishermen transiting through the Oculina Bank HAPC with rock shrimp on aboard; expands a portion of the western boundary of the Stetson Reefs, Savannah and East Florida Lithoherms, and Miami Terrace Deepwater Coral HAPC (CHAPC) (Stetson-Miami Terrace CHAPC), including modifications to the shrimp access area A, which is renamed “shrimp access area 1”; and expands a portion of the northern boundary of the Cape Lookout Lophelia Banks Deepwater CHAPC (Cape Lookout CHAPC). In addition, this rule makes a minor administrative change to the names of the shrimp fishery access areas. The purpose of this rule is to increase protections for deepwater coral based on new information for deepwater coral resources in the South Atlantic.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective August 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic copies of Amendment 8, which includes an environmental assessment and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/s_atl/coral/index.html.

    Comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted in writing to Anik Clemens, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; and OMB, by email at OIRA [email protected], or by fax to 202-395-7285.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karla Gore, Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    South Atlantic coral is managed under the FMP. The FMP is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

    On May 20, 2014, NMFS published a notice of availability for Amendment 8 and requested public comment (79 FR 28880). On July 3, 2014, NMFS published a proposed rule for Amendment 8 and requested public comment (79 FR 31907). Subsequently, NMFS published a correction to the notice of availability (79 FR 37269, July 1, 2014) and the proposed rule (79 FR 37270, July 1, 2014) to correct an error in the size of the Oculina Bank HAPC. The proposed rule and NOA stated that the size of the Oculina Bank HAPC would expand “by 405.42 square miles (1,050 square km), for a total area of 694.42 square miles (1,798.5 square km) . . .” However, this was incorrect. The published corrections explained that the increase in size of the Oculina Bank HAPC would be 343.42 square miles (889.5 square km), for a total area of 632.42 square miles (1,638 square km). The Secretary approved the amendment on August 18, 2014. The proposed rule and Amendment 8 set forth the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the actions implemented by this final rule is provided below.

    Management Measures Contained in This Final Rule

    This final rule expands the boundaries of the Oculina Bank HAPC and allows transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC by fishing vessels with rock shrimp onboard; modifies the VMS requirements for rock shrimp fishermen transiting the Oculina Bank HAPC; expands the boundaries of the Stetson-Miami Terrace CHAPC, the adjacent shrimp fishery access area, and the Cape Lookout CHAPC; and makes a minor administrative change to the names of the shrimp fishery access areas. The purpose of these measures is to provide better protection for deepwater coral ecosystems.

    Expansion of Oculina Bank HAPC

    This final rule increases the size of the Oculina Bank HAPC by 343.42 square miles (889.5 square km), for a total area of 632.42 square miles (1,638 square km) and, except for a limited transit provision described below, extends the current prohibitions to the larger area, and increases protection of coral. The prohibitions for the Oculina Bank include the following: It is unlawful to use a bottom longline, bottom trawl, dredge, pot or trap, and if aboard a fishing vessel it is unlawful to anchor, use an anchor and chain, or use a grapple and chain. Additionally, it is unlawful to fish for or possess rock shrimp in or from the Oculina Bank HAPC on board a fishing vessel.

    Transit Provision With Rock Shrimp on Board Through Oculina Bank HAPC

    This final rule establishes a transit provision to allow fishing vessels with rock shrimp onboard to transit the Oculina Bank HAPC under limited circumstances. To be considered to be in transit and thus allowed to possess rock shrimp on board a vessel in the Oculina Bank HAPC, a vessel must have a valid commercial permit for rock shrimp, the vessel's gear must be appropriately stowed (i.e., doors and nets are required to be out of water and onboard the deck or below the deck of the vessel), and the vessel must maintain a direct and non-stop continuous course through the HAPC at a minimum speed of 5 knots, as determined by an operating VMS approved for the South Atlantic rock shrimp fishery onboard the vessel. In addition, this rule modifies the VMS requirements to require all vessels with rock shrimp onboard that choose to transit the Oculina Bank HAPC to have a VMS unit that registers a VMS ping (signal) rate of 1 ping per 5 minutes. As discussed in the proposed rule, not all VMS units used on the vessels in the rock shrimp fishery were expected to be able to meet the ping rate requirement. As a result, some vessels were expected to have to reconfigure or upgrade their unit, or purchase a new unit, in order to be able to transit the Oculina Bank HAPC within this exception. However, since publication of the proposed rule, NMFS has determined that all vessels have VMS units that are capable of registering a VMS ping (signal) rate of 1 ping per 5 minutes, however, they will incur higher communication costs for this ping rate if they choose to transit the Oculina Bank HAPC with rock shrimp onboard. These communication costs will be offset by not incurring the costs associated with having to transit around the HAPC to get to or from the fishing grounds. This transit provision allows rock shrimp fishermen with rock shrimp onboard their vessels to travel to and from additional rock shrimp fishing grounds in less time using less fuel than if the fishermen are required to travel around the Oculina Bank HAPC.

    Expansion of the Stetson-Miami Terrace CHAPC and the Cape Lookout CHAPC

    This final rule increases the size of the Stetson-Miami Terrace CHAPC by 490 square miles (1,269 square km), for a total area of 24,018 square miles (62,206 square km), and increases the size of the Cape Lookout CHAPC by 10 square miles (26 square km), for a total area of 326 square miles (844 square km), and extends the current CHAPC gear prohibitions to the larger areas to increase protection of deepwater coral ecosystems. The prohibitions for the CHAPCs include the following: It is unlawful to use a bottom longline, trawl (mid-water or bottom), dredge, pot or trap, and if aboard a fishing vessel, it is unlawful to anchor, use an anchor and chain, or use a grapple and chain. Additionally, it is unlawful to fish for or possess coral in or from the CHAPCs on board a fishing vessel.

    Additionally, the expansion of the Stetson-Miami Terrace CHAPC provides royal red shrimp fishermen a new zone adjacent to the existing shrimp access area A (renamed “shrimp access area 1”, as discussed in the next section of this preamble) within which they can haul-back fishing gear without drifting into an area where their gear is prohibited. Thus, this rule expands the shrimp fishery access area to include the new haul-back zone.

    Other Changes to Regulatory Text

    This rule also revises the names of the shrimp fishery access areas, from “shrimp access area A-D” to “shrimp access area 1-4”, in the regulations implemented through the Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment 1 (75 FR 35330, June 22, 2010) to more closely match the names in the FMP. This final rule also revises 50 CFR 622.224(c)(3)(i)-(iv), to change the four shrimp fishery access areas titles.

    Comments and Responses

    NMFS received a total of 35 comment letters on Amendment 8 and the proposed rule, which include letters from a Federal agency, an environmental organization, private citizens, recreational fishermen, commercial fishermen, and fishing associations. Five letters expressed support for the amendment and three letters were unrelated to the actions in Amendment 8. One comment letter was signed by 257 members of the rock shrimp fishing industry and opposed the implementation of the amendment. The specific comments on the actions contained in Amendment 8 and the proposed rule and NMFS's respective responses, are summarized below.

    Comment 1: Amendment 8 is not based upon the best scientific information available because the analysis to determine the location of fishing and the socio-economic impacts of proposed extensions to the HAPCs was based on VMS data. The assumption that each VMS point should be given equal value is incorrect. Amendment 8 should have included trawl track data generated from WinPlotTM software matched up to trip ticket information from the state of Florida. Trawl track data, instead of VMS data, may be more easily correlated with trip ticket information to determine location and value of catches.

    Response: NMFS disagrees that Amendment 8 was not based on the best scientific information available. NMFS requires a VMS onboard each rock shrimp fishing vessel to determine where the fishing vessel is fishing and provides this information through VMS generated trawl track data. NMFS does not require trawl track data generated by WinPlotTM or any other proprietary tracking or monitoring system. Thus, VMS data were used in Amendment 8 to determine location of fishing effort and economic impacts, and NMFS has determined that Amendment 8 used the best scientific information available.

    WinPlotTM is charting software used by some fishermen in the rock shrimp fishery in addition to the required VMS. It is unknown if all rock shrimp fishermen are using WinplotTM software or if they all are recording the same information for each trawl or trip. Trawl track information from WinPlotTM represents self-reported data for which there are no standardized data elements, and there would be limited utility of trying to use WinPlotTM trawl track data for socio-economic analysis. Instead, the data from the required VMS units were used to determine the socio-economic impacts. The analysis considered the percentage of VMS points on average that occur in the area that would become closed to rock shrimp fishing. Rock shrimp landings information cannot be associated to each VMS data point. As a result, any assessment of the expected effects of the Oculina Bank HAPC expansion requires an assumption of how harvest is expected to be distributed over the area encompassed by the expansion. NMFS has determined that the assumption that the harvest of rock shrimp occurs uniformly across each VMS data point is reasonable.

    Comment 2: The rock shrimp industry (vessels, restaurants, processors, fish houses, fuel companies, freight companies, crews, dock workers, etc.) will suffer significant economic impacts if the northern expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC in Amendment 8 is implemented.

    Response: The northern expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC may have adverse economic effects on some individual businesses associated with the rock shrimp industry; however, NMFS disagrees that the industry will suffer significant economic impacts due to the variable nature of rock shrimp harvest. The average annual revenue from rock shrimp harvest over the period 2007-2012 was $1.92 million (2012 dollars), but ranged from a low of approximately $442,000 in 2007 to a high of approximately $3.89 million in 2008. In 2012, the most recent year for which final data were available at the time of completion of Amendment 8, the rock shrimp revenue was approximately $501,000. Thus, the economic performance of the industry is quite variable and the associated businesses, on average, would be expected to be economically flexible by necessity. For rock shrimp harvesters, this flexibility is demonstrated by the fact that, on average, the majority of annual fishing revenue comes from other species. Over the period 2009, 2010, and 2011, rock shrimp accounted for 27 percent, 22 percent, and 13 percent of the average total fishing revenue per vessel in each year, respectively. Comparable data for more recent years are not available. For rock shrimp harvesters, penaeid shrimp harvested in the South Atlantic was the highest revenue species in each year, ranging from 43 percent in 2011 to 63 percent in 2009. Additionally, although there are an estimated 104 vessels permitted to harvest rock shrimp, the number of vessels that actually harvest rock shrimp in the South Atlantic is substantially less. During 2009, 2010, and 2011, only 31, 19, and 18 vessels harvested rock shrimp in the South Atlantic in these years, respectively, and the production results provided above reflect the estimated average performance of these vessels. These results demonstrate, on average, that although the revenue from rock shrimp comprises a substantial portion of total annual revenue, rock shrimp fishermen are more dependent on other species.

    In addition to analyzing the relative importance of rock shrimp revenue within the total fishing revenue, the significance of any economic effects will be determined by the expected reduction in rock shrimp harvest. It is not possible to determine with certainty the reduction in rock shrimp harvest that may occur as a result of the proposed expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC because available data does not allow for the tabulation of rock shrimp harvest per tow, and the harvest area is recorded by statistical grid (60 nautical miles squared). Additionally, the distribution and abundance of rock shrimp in any area is highly variable from year to year. Although anecdotal information made available through public comment may suggest higher rock shrimp yields in the northern expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC in 2013, sufficient information is not available to conclude this higher abundance of rock shrimp will persist or that it is more representative of future conditions than the historic average. Further, it has not been shown that the northern expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC is the source of substantial rock shrimp harvest in years when total rock shrimp harvests have been high. In the absence of harvest data per tow, the assessment of the expected reduction in rock shrimp harvest was based on the assumption that rock shrimp harvest is uniformly distributed over the statistical grid and, thus, the reduction in harvest as a result of the northern expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC would be proportionate to the amount of area in the expansion relative to the area in the total statistical grid within which harvest is reported. Although this assumption may not capture the actual harvest that has occurred in the expansion area, or the potential higher productivity that may occasionally occur in future years, NMFS has determined this assumption is reasonable.

    Comment 3: Does the analysis use all of the existing 678 commercial vessel permits for South Atlantic snapper-grouper, or only the vessel logbooks home ported nearest the Amendment 8 proposed expansions of the Oculina Bank HAPC areas from Fort Pierce north to St. Augustine, Florida, or only the logbooks of the vessels that indicated they fished in that area with landings as a metric of socio-economic impact in this analysis? The minimal impact description to the commercial snapper-grouper fleet contained in Amendment 8 is incorrect.

    Response: The assessment of the socio-economic effects of the expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC was based on the expected average harvest of snapper-grouper species in the area of the expansion over the period 2009-2011, as recorded in all logbooks regardless of where the respective vessels were home-ported. Because harvest is recorded by statistical grid (60 nautical miles squared) and is not available at finer geographic resolution, the expected reduction in snapper-grouper harvest was based on the assumption that snapper-grouper harvest is uniformly distributed over the area in the statistical grid and, thus, the reduction in harvest as a result of the northern expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC would be proportionate to the amount of area in the expansion relative to the area in the total statistical grid within which harvest is reported. Although this assumption may not capture the actual harvest that has occurred in the proposed expansion area, NMFS has determined this assumption is reasonable.

    Comment 4: The $189,464 average annual revenue loss estimate for the proposed northern and western extension to the Oculina Bank HAPC is too low. Rock shrimp abundance and distribution is extremely variable, and only recent information, rather than an average, should be used in the economic analysis. The estimated value of the catches in the area was approximately $1,000,000 for a subset of 6 vessels over a 3-week period in September 2013, which substantially transcends the average annual revenue loss of $189,464 for all vessels in the entire fishery over the entire fishing year, as set forth in Amendment 8.

    Response: NMFS disagrees that the average annual revenue loss estimate for the proposed northern and western extension to the Oculina Bank HAPC is too low. Because rock shrimp are so variable over time and space, it is not appropriate to use only the most recent anecdotal information to determine the socio-economic effects of the proposed action. The Council approved Amendment 8 for review by the Secretary of Commerce at its September 2013 meeting. On November 6, 2013, the Council was informed in a letter about high landings of rock shrimp in the proposed northern extension of the Oculina Bank HAPC. Although anecdotal information made available through public comment may suggest higher rock shrimp yields in the northern extension of the Oculina Bank HAPC in 2013, sufficient information is not available for NMFS to conclude a higher abundance will persist and is more representative of future conditions than the historic average as previously discussed.

    Comment 5: Amendment 8 is in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because Action 1 did not consider a reasonable range of alternatives. Alternatives 2 and 3 are completely distinct from each other and modify different boundaries of the HAPC, thus Alternative 3 should be a separate action. Also, Alternative 2 had two sub-alternatives and Alternative 3 did not have any. Furthermore, the Purpose and Need section of Amendment 8 is focused on protection of deepwater coral and does not include any reference to minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse economic impacts on the rock shrimp fishery.

    Response: NMFS disagrees that Amendment 8 is in violation of NEPA. While Alternatives 2 and 3 under Action 1 consider modifications to the northern and western boundaries of the Oculina Bank HAPC, respectively, they fall within the scope of the action which is to “Expand Boundaries of the Oculina Bank HAPC.” Further, NEPA does not require that the Purpose and Need include a reference to minimizing economic impacts. According to NEPA, biological, economic, social and administrative impacts of the proposed actions should be analyzed and considered. These analyses in Amendment 8 used the best scientific information available and are included in Chapter 4 of the amendment, and were considered by the Council. The Council's adoption of a recommendation by their Deepwater Shrimp Advisory Panel for modification of the northern extension of the Oculina Bank HAPC, reduced fishery impacts where traditional fishing activity occurs. NMFS has determined that Amendment 8 and its implementing final rule will be effective in increasing the protection of deepwater coral while minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse socio-economic impacts, as required by National Standard 8 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

    Comment 6: The actions in the proposed rule indicate the Council and NMFS may have a misunderstanding of how a shrimp trawl works. The type of trawl used to catch rock shrimp is not designed to work in hard rocky bottom.

    Response: A description of the rock shrimp fishing practices, vessels involved, and gear used can be found in Section 3 of Amendment 8. It was discussed at the November 2012 Habitat Advisory Panel and the December 2012 Council meetings that rock shrimp fishermen do not trawl on coral or hard-bottom coral habitat, but instead target rock shrimp on their preferred soft-bottom habitat where coral is not present.

    Comment 7: The minutes from the October 2012 Joint Deepwater Shrimp and Coral Advisory Panels meeting were lost. At that meeting, an agreement was made between a scientist, a member of Council staff, and the chair of the Deepwater Shrimp Advisory Panel to develop a new alternative for the northern Oculina Bank HAPC extension for consideration by the Council. Because the minutes from the meeting were lost, there is no documentation of this agreement. An alternative for the northern Oculina Bank HAPC extension alternative was later developed without the input of the Deepwater Shrimp Advisory Panel Chair. Several hours were spent at the October 2012 meeting demonstrating and educating the Coral Advisory Panel about rock shrimping, the equipment used, and the process involved. The Coral Advisory Panel agreed with the Deepwater Shrimp Advisory Panel that rock shrimp trawls were not harming coral or coral habitats.

    Response: The Coral and Deepwater Shrimp Advisory Panels met in Cape Canaveral, Florida, on October 18, 2012, and the Chair of the Deepwater Shrimp Advisory Panel presented an overview of the rock shrimp fishery. The verbatim minutes of that joint meeting were partially compromised and are incomplete because the afternoon session of the joint advisory panel meeting was not recorded and transcribed, due to an inadvertent, technical error. A new alternative for the northern Oculina Bank HAPC extension, developed by a Council staff member and a scientist following the October 2012 Joint Coral and Deepwater Shrimp Advisory Panel Meeting, was brought to the Council at their December 2012 meeting, and the Council added this new alternative to Amendment 8 at that meeting. The Chair of the Deepwater Shrimp Advisory Panel also attended the December 2012 Council meeting, and he indicated that some slight adjustments to the new alternative might be needed. During its May 2013 meeting, the Deepwater Shrimp Advisory Panel discussed the new alternative, and made a recommendation to further modify the boundaries to reduce fishery impacts in the area where traditional fishing activity occurs. Recognizing that rock shrimpers do not trawl on coral or hard-bottom habitat, the Council, at its June 2013 meeting, adopted the Deepwater Shrimp Advisory Panel's recommendation for the modified northern Oculina Bank HAPC extension alternative, and chose that alternative as its preferred alternative.

    Comment 8: The public was not properly notified that a new and significant revision to the proposed closed area under Action 1, Alternative 2 would be discussed and considered by the Habitat Advisory Panel during its November 2012 meeting. Failure to provide timely notice of this new matter on the agenda for the Habitat Advisory Panel meeting made it difficult for the Chair of the Deepwater Shrimp Advisory Panel and members of the Habitat Advisory Panel to assist in the collection and evaluation of information relevant to the development of the new alternative.

    Response: The Habitat and Environmental Protection Advisory Panel Meeting was announced in the Federal Register on October 29, 2012 (77 FR 65536). The announcement stated “Topics to be addressed at the meeting include: A member workshop on developing the South Atlantic Habitat and Ecosystem Atlas and Digital Dashboard, including the new online Ecospecies System; species research and habitat mapping associated with deepwater marine protected areas; deepwater habitat complexes associated with Coral Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (CHAPC) extension proposals; a review of a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Atlantic Councils on deepwater coral ecosystem conservation; a review of other regional partner activities supporting the regional move to ecosystem-based management; and consideration of updates to essential fish habitat policy statements as needed.” Specific alternatives for actions in amendments are not usually contained in agendas for Advisory Panel meetings in Federal Register notices. However, a discussion of the actions and alternatives in Amendment 8 fits within the scope of the agenda and topics announced for discussion at the Habitat Advisory Panel meeting. Thus, the public was properly notified about the Habitat Advisory Panel Meeting in accordance with section 302(i)(2)(C) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and an additional Federal Register notice was not necessary.

    Comment 9: Amendment 8 is not consistent with section 3.2.7 of the Council's Statement of Organization, Practices, and Procedures (SOPPs) because the Deepwater Shrimp Advisory Panel Chairman was denied the opportunity to make a presentation of the issues to be discussed at the November 2012 meeting of the Habitat Advisory Panel, including a new alternative for the northern Oculina Bank HAPC extension for consideration by the Council. This presentation could have been accommodated, at a minimum, during a public comment period during the advisory panel meeting.

    Response: Section 3.2.7 of the Council's SOPPs states: “Public testimony will be allowed at Council meetings on all agenda items before the Council for final action and at advisory panel (AP) and Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) meetings on all agenda items. If the agenda does not schedule a time for public testimony, the chairperson or presiding officer shall schedule testimony at an appropriate time during the meeting that is consistent with the orderly conduct of business.” Although the Chair of the Deepwater Shrimp Advisory Panel was not provided the opportunity to make a presentation at the Habitat and Environmental Protection Advisory Panel Meeting, that Chair did provide public testimony on issues related to the northern extension of the Oculina Bank HAPC at the Habitat and Environmental Protection Advisory Panel Meeting in accordance with the Council's SOPPs, and with section 302(i)(2)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

    Comment 10: The SSC did not provide the Council any meaningful scientific advice on the social or economic impacts of the proposed management measures contained in Amendment 8. The SSC was not provided with timely or complete VMS data and other necessary data on the fishery and the proposed management measures.

    Response: The SSC reviewed and discussed Amendment 8 at its April 2013 meeting. A report from that meeting states “By consensus the Committee agreed that the proposed actions that modify the CHAPCs succeed in addressing the Purpose and Need of Amendment 8 and, therefore, actions in Amendment 8 are warranted to protect coral in these areas.”

    Comment 11: The rock shrimp industry requested that a transit implementation plan be put in place before the proposed northern extension area of the Oculina Bank HAPC is effective, in order to test the transit provision. A serious safety issue will be created for shrimpers working offshore of a closed area that extends from Ft. Pierce to St. Augustine without the ability to transit the area.

    Response: The Council and NMFS determined that the expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC and the establishment of a transit provision needed to be implemented simultaneously. As a result, the final rule will establish a provision to allow fishing vessels with rock shrimp onboard to transit the Oculina Bank HAPC. The expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC and the transit provision will be effective 30 days after the final rule publishes.

    Comment 12: The Council did not consider any other methods to protect deepwater coral habitat in Amendment 8 except to expand the HAPCs.

    Response: The Council has protected deepwater coral ecosystems through fishing gear restrictions in HAPCs. The Oculina Bank HAPC was implemented in 1984, and the Stetson-Miami Terrace Coral HAPC and the Cape Lookout Coral HAPC were included in the Coral HAPCs that were implemented in 2010. Within the existing HAPCs, the use of bottom longline, bottom trawl, dredge, pot, or trap, as well as the use of an anchor, anchor and chain, or grapple and chain is prohibited if on board a fishing vessel. Within the Coral HAPCs, the use of a mid-water trawl is also prohibited. Fishing for or possessing rock shrimp or Oculina coral is prohibited within the Oculina Bank HAPC (this rule will allow transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC for rock shrimp fishermen with rock shrimp onboard their vessel), and fishing for or possessing coral is prohibited on board a fishing vessel in the Coral HAPCs. Recent scientific explorations have identified areas of high relief features and hard bottom habitat outside the boundaries of the existing Oculina Bank HAPC and Coral HAPCs. Deepwater coral are extremely fragile and slow growing, and any method to protect deepwater coral must involve restrictions on gear that may impact coral. The Council recommended expansion of existing HAPCs to provide protection to the newly discovered areas of deepwater coral. Other options such as a prohibition to all fishing could have been considered; however, the Council determined that prohibiting the use of gear that may impact coral through the expansion of HAPCs was the most appropriate method for protecting deepwater coral, while minimizing, to the extent practicable, negative socio-economic impacts.

    Comment 13: Research dives found only two instances of deepwater coral, yet Amendment 8 proposes to close 267 square miles of historical trawling grounds in the northern extension of Oculina Bank HAPC. The Oculina Bank HAPC should not be expanded westward as there is no Oculina coral in that area. The new information does not justify such a large closure. The Oculina Bank HAPC is sufficiently large to protect deepwater coral ecosystems.

    Response: In October 2011, a presentation was provided to the Council's Coral Advisory Panel on two new areas of high-relief Oculina coral mounds and hard bottom habitats that had been discovered north and west of the current boundaries of the Oculina Bank HAPC. The locations of these sites were originally identified from NOAA regional bathymetric charts and later verified with multibeam sonar, a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) and submersible video surveys. The sonar maps and ROV dives confirmed that the high-relief features of the NOAA regional charts were high-relief Oculina coral mounds. Based on bathymetric charts, it is estimated that over 100 mounds exist in this area. Other observations include gentle slopes covered with coral rubble, standing dead coral, and sparse live Oculina coral colonies. Exposed hard bottom with 1 to 2 meter relief ledges was observed at the base of some mounds. Between the mounds and west of the main reef track, the substrate is mostly soft sediment but patchy rock pavement habitat and coral rubble are also present. Multibeam sonar maps made in 2002 and 2005 revealed numerous high-relief coral mounds and hard bottom habitat that are west of the western Oculina Bank HAPC boundary. A few of these mounds are comprised mostly of coral rubble, with live and standing dead Oculina. During its 2011 October meeting, the Coral Advisory Panel recommended the Council revisit the boundaries of the Oculina Bank HAPC, Stetson-Miami Terrace Coral HAPC, and the Cape Lookout Coral HAPC to incorporate these areas of additional deepwater coral habitat that were previously uncharacterized. The Council determined that, based on the information provided, extension of the HAPCs was appropriate. The NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center reviewed the amendment and certified that it was based on the best scientific information available. NMFS agrees with that determination.

    Comment 14: It is not appropriate for anchors or drag nets to be used in the HAPCs but fishing with hook-and-line gear should be allowed, because research has shown hook-and-line fishing does not create any lasting damage to bottom habitat.

    Response: Hook-and-line fishing without anchoring in the HAPCs will not be restricted by this amendment. The management measures contained in this final rule are intended to protect deepwater coral ecosystems from gear than may impact coral. Within the existing HAPCs, the use of bottom longline, bottom trawl, dredge, pot, or trap, as well as the use of an anchor, anchor and chain, or grapple and chain if on board a fishing vessel is prohibited. The use of mid-water trawl gear is also prohibited in the Coral HAPCs. Fishing for or possessing rock shrimp or Oculina coral is also prohibited within the Oculina Bank HAPC (this rule will allow transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC for rock shrimp fishermen with rock shrimp onboard their vessel), and fishing for or possessing coral is prohibited on board a fishing vessel in the Coral HAPCs.

    Comment 15: The coordinates (latitude and longitude) published in the proposed rule for the Oculina Bank HAPC extension do not match any of the figures in the amendment used to illustrate the boundaries. The Council has never seen a good illustration of the area where the rock shrimp vessels operate and the historical fishing grounds (indicated by VMS points) that are being eliminated.

    Response: The coordinates in the amendment and the rule differ slightly in the way they are listed but do not differ functionally. In the amendment, the latitude and longitude in the figures are in degrees and decimal minutes, and were converted to degrees, minutes, and seconds in the proposed and final rules. This conversion was necessary to remain consistent with the coordinates contained in the regulations for the other CHAPCs. Also, in the amendment, the coordinates listed identify the expanded area rather than the entire Oculina Bank HAPC, while the proposed rule lists the coordinates for the entire Oculina Bank HAPC, including the new expanded area. Figures S-4 and S-6 in Amendment 8 illustrate the northern and western extensions of the Oculina Bank HAPC, and illustrate the VMS points showing fishing by rock shrimp vessels operating in that area. The Council had sufficient information to make its decision when they approved Amendment 8. NMFS will work with the Council to improve the illustrations in future amendments.

    Comment 16: Instead of expanding the Oculina Bank HAPC, studies should be done on increased algae growth on the south end of the Oculina Bank.

    Response: The purpose of Amendment 8 is to increase protections for deepwater coral based on new information of deepwater coral resources in the South Atlantic. Studies of algae growth in Oculina Bank are outside the scope of this amendment. There is currently no information on increased algae growth in Oculina Bank, however, that is an area for potential research in the future.

    Comment 17: It appears that the rock shrimp are moving northward due to changes in climate. The northern expansion of Oculina Bank HAPC will cut off access to historical northern shrimping grounds and will not protect coral.

    Response: There are likely many factors that may explain the variability in rock shrimp abundance and distribution, and climate change may be one of the factors. Expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC may have adverse effects on some individual businesses associated with the rock shrimp industry, but is expected to enhance protection to deepwater corals. The northern expansion of Oculina Bank HAPC is based on recent scientific information, which indicates deepwater coral ecosystems occur in the area. This expansion is expected to reduce historical fishing in the area by about 5 percent based on VMS data from 2007-2012.

    Comment 18: Expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC, Stetson-Miami Terrace Coral HAPC, and Cape Lookout Coral HAPC could have implications for green energy development and exploration in the future.

    Response: NMFS has determined that any effects of expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC, and the Stetson-Miami Terrace or Cape Lookout Coral HAPCs on the development of green energy or exploration would be speculative. The Oculina Bank HAPC, Stetson-Miami Terrace Coral HAPC, and Cape Lookout Coral HAPC have been designated as essential fish habitat (EFH) HAPCs by the Council to warrant special protection. Designation as EFH or an EFH-HAPC would require that Federal agencies consult with the NMFS Habitat Conservation Division, if a Federal agency determines its activity or action may adversely affect EFH or the EFH-HAPC.

    Comment 19: There have been many problems with Amendment 8. For example, NMFS published a correction notice in the Federal Register on July 1, 2014, noting an error found in the preamble text for the proposed rule and the notice of availability for the amendment, with regard to the actual size of the proposed expansion of the Oculina HAPC.

    Response: As explained in the Supplementary Information above, NMFS published correction notices during the comment period for Amendment 8 and the proposed rule on July 1, 2014 (79 FR 37270 and 79 FR 37269), to correct an inadvertent error regarding the proposed increased size of the Oculina Bank HAPC. The proposed rule and notice of availability for the amendment stated “the proposed rule would increase the size of the Oculina Bank HAPC by 405.42 square miles (1,050 square km), for a total area of 694.42 square miles (1,798.5 square km) . . .” This was incorrect. The correction notices explained that the proposed rule would increase the size of the Oculina Bank HAPC by 343.42 square miles (889.5 square km), for a total area of 632.42 square miles (1,638 square km).

    Comment 20: Amendment 8 is not consistent with section 303(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Magnuson-Steven Act, which requires that for any closed area, NMFS must ensure a timetable is established for review of the closed area's performance, consistent with the purposes of the closed area.

    Response: Section 303(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Magnuson-Steven Act is applicable when a closure prohibits all fishing. Because Amendment 8 does not prohibit all fishing, the requirements of section 303(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Magnuson-Steven Act are not applicable. Although there are fishing gear restrictions in the existing HAPCs and expanded HAPCs, fishing would continue to be allowed in the HAPCs with the appropriate gear.

    Changes From the Proposed Rule

    Since publication of the proposed rule, NMFS Office for Law Enforcement (OLE) published a final rule to specify requirements related to approved VMS units, which describes the requirements for vendors wishing to provide VMS units for domestic fisheries (70 FR 77399, December 24, 2014). NMFS has now determined that the discussion of the VMS requirements in the proposed rule preamble and economic analysis for Coral Amendment 8 was incorrect. The preamble in the proposed rule stated that the proposed transit provisions would require that some VMS units would need to be replaced or would be required to have software/hardware upgrades to allow transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC with rock shrimp on board. Estimates of the costs of these upgrades were provided in the proposed rule. However, NMFS has since determined that the VMS units currently operating in the fishery are capable of signaling at a rate of at least 1 ping per 5 minutes, as is required by Amendment 8 and this rule.

    Therefore, no replacement units or upgrades will likely be necessary for fishing vessels with rock shrimp on board that choose to transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC. As a result, the only costs associated with this final rule may be the increased communication charges if vessels choose to transit through the closed area with rock shrimp onboard. The maximum charge for any of the VMS units is $0.06 per ping, however, the total amount of increased communication charges per vessel cannot be determined because the total cost will depend on how often a vessel transits the Oculina Bank HAPC and the route the vessel chooses to take through the HAPC.

    In addition, NMFS fixes a spelling mistake in this final rule. This rule changes the spelling of “Lithotherm” to “Lithoherm” in the name of the CHAPC “Stetson Reefs, Savannah and East Florida Lithoherms, and Miami Terrace Deepwater Coral HAPC” in 50 CFR 622.224(c)(1)(iii).

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS has determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of deepwater coral resources in the South Atlantic and is consistent with Amendment 8, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    NMFS prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for this rule. The FRFA describes the economic impact this rule is expected to have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the analysis follows.

    The purpose of this rule is to address recent discoveries of deepwater coral resources and protect deepwater coral ecosystems in the Council's jurisdiction from activities that could compromise their condition. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this rule.

    Comments on the proposed rule are addressed in the comments and responses section of this final rule and the changes to the final rule are discussed in the changes from the proposed rule section of this final rule. No changes were made to the rule in response to these comments.

    This rule does not include any reporting or record-keeping requirements other than those associated with the VMS requirements discussed below.

    This rule is expected to directly apply up to 700 vessels that commercially harvest snapper-grouper species and up to 104 vessels that commercially harvest rock shrimp in the affected areas of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the South Atlantic. Among the vessels that harvest rock shrimp, an estimated 9 vessels also harvest royal red shrimp. Although potentially all vessels in the snapper-grouper commercial sector could potentially be affected, the number of vessels that actually fish in the affected areas is expected to be small, as evidenced by the minimal economic effects expected to occur as a result of this rule (described below). The average vessel involved in commercial snapper-grouper harvest is estimated to earn approximately $28,700 (2012 dollars) in annual gross revenue, and the average vessel permitted to harvest rock shrimp is estimated to earn approximately $20,500 (2012 dollars) in annual rock shrimp gross revenue. The average annual gross revenue for vessels that harvest both rock shrimp and royal red shrimp is estimated to be approximately $113,000 (2012 dollars). However, although there are an estimated 104 vessels permitted to harvest rock shrimp, the number of vessels that actually harvest rock shrimp in the South Atlantic is substantially less. Over the period 2009-2011, only 31, 19, and 18 vessels harvested rock shrimp in the South Atlantic in these years, respectively. Based on sample data from these vessels (10 vessels in 2009, 7 vessels in 2010, and 9 vessels in 2011), the average annual total revenue from all fishing activity during these years was approximately $334,000 (2012 dollars) in 2009, $725,000 in 2010, and $629,000 in 2011. More recent data are not available. NMFS has not identified any other small entities that would be expected to be directly affected by this rule.

    The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States including seafood dealers and harvesters. A business involved in commercial finfish fishing is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $20.5 million (NAICS code 114111, Finfish Fishing). The receipts threshold for a business involved in shrimp fishing is $5.5 million (NAICS code 114112, Shellfish Fishing). Because the average annual gross revenues for the commercial fishing operations expected to be directly affected by this rule are significantly less than the SBA revenue threshold, all these businesses are believed to be small business entities.

    This rule contains four separate actions. The first action expands the boundaries of the Oculina Bank HAPC by 343.42 square miles (889.5 square km), for a total area of 632.42 square miles (1,638 square km). Expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC is expected to affect vessels that harvest snapper-grouper, rock shrimp, and royal red shrimp because some fishermen have historically harvested these species in this area and will be prevented by the expansion from continuing to fish here. The expected maximum potential reduction in total gross revenue from snapper-grouper species as a result of the expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC is approximately $56,000 (2012 dollars), or less than 0.3 percent of the total average annual revenue received by South Atlantic commercial fishing vessels from snapper-grouper species. The expected maximum potential reduction in revenue from snapper-grouper species is minimal, and fishermen may be able to absorb the reduction or adapt their fishing practices to the expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC and increase their fishing effort, and harvest, in other locations to mitigate the impact of the reduction. Additionally, fishermen may benefit from spill-over effects (increased total harvest or more cost-efficient harvest) of the enhanced productivity of the protected Oculina Bank HAPC.

    All vessels that harvest royal red shrimp are expected to also harvest rock shrimp. Royal red shrimp are not managed in a fishery management plan by the Council, therefore, neither logbooks nor VMS units are required to harvest royal red shrimp. As a result, NMFS cannot determine with available data what portion of the average annual royal red shrimp harvest may be affected by the expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC. However, the primary effect of the expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC is expected to be on the harvest of rock shrimp and not the harvest of royal red shrimp. This rule is expected to reduce the total revenue from rock shrimp for all potentially affected rock shrimp fishermen by a maximum of approximately $189,500 (2012 dollars).

    Translating this expected reduction in total revenue to an average reduction per vessel is difficult because of the variability in participation in the fishery from year-to-year, as well as variability in revenue. As discussed above, significantly more vessels are permitted to harvest rock shrimp (104 vessels) than harvest rock shrimp (18-31 vessels, 2009-2011). Compared to the performance in each of the years 2009-2011, the expected annual total reduction in revenue from rock shrimp as a result of the Oculina Bank HAPC expansion would be approximately 1.8 percent of the total average annual gross revenue based on 2009 performance (reduction of approximately $6,100 per vessel compared to total average revenue of $334,000; 2012 dollars), 1.4 percent based on 2010 performance (reduction of approximately $10,000 per vessel compared to total average revenue of $725,000; 2012 dollars), and 1.7 percent based on 2011 performance (reduction of approximately $10,500 per vessel compared to total average revenue of $629,000; 2012 dollars). Overall, although the reduction in rock shrimp revenue as a result of the Oculina Bank HAPC expansion may be more than projected, rock shrimp accounted for only 27 percent, 22 percent, and 13 percent of total fishing revenue each year over the period 2009, 2010, and 2011 for vessels harvesting South Atlantic rock shrimp, respectively. Penaeid shrimp were the highest revenue species in each of these years. Thus, on average, although the revenue from rock shrimp comprises a substantial portion of total annual revenue, available data indicate that rock shrimp fishermen are more dependent on other species than rock shrimp. Although the revenue from royal red shrimp also may be affected, the economic effects of the proposed expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC on vessels that harvest royal red shrimp are expected to be minor.

    The second action establishes transit provisions through the Oculina Bank HAPC for a vessel with rock shrimp on board. This rule will allow transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC by a vessel with rock shrimp on board if the vessel maintains a direct and non-stop continuous course at a minimum speed of 5 knots (as determined by an operating VMS approved for the South Atlantic rock shrimp fishery and the VMS onboard the vessel registers a VMS ping (signal) rate of 1 ping per 5 minutes), and the vessel's gear is appropriately stowed (i.e., doors and nets will be required to be out of water and onboard the deck or below the deck of the vessel). At the time of publication of the proposed rule, NMFS expected that this VMS ping rate, which is more frequent than that currently required, would result in increased costs for vessels choosing to transit. These costs would be associated with the purchase of new VMS units for vessels with units unable to ping at the higher rate (22 vessels), upgrade of units that could ping at the higher rate if upgraded (57 vessels), and increased communication costs (all vessels). These increased costs were estimated to range from approximately $2,795 to $3,595 for the purchase and installation of a new VMS unit and approximately $300 per vessel for VMS unit upgrades and associated shipping costs. Increased communication costs were not estimated because they would depend on the frequency of transit and, in some cases, would only increase if the resultant total number of pings exceeded a pre-paid threshold. The maximum communication charge that has been identified is $0.06 per ping and the number of pings per transit should be minimal if a vessel takes the most direct path through the Oculina Bank HAPC.

    Subsequent to publication of the proposed rule, however, NMFS determined that all of the VMS units operated by the affected rock shrimp vessels are capable of communicating at the higher ping rate. As a result, no vessel that desires to transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC with rock shrimp on board will be required to purchase a new VMS unit or acquire an upgrade and the only change in costs will be an increase in communication costs. Despite this increase in communication costs, any increase will be voluntarily incurred because the rule will not require that vessels transit the Oculina Bank HAPC with rock shrimp on board. The net economic effect per entity of transiting is expected to be positive. Transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC is expected to reduce operating expenses by allowing a vessel to avoid time-consuming and costly travel around the area with rock shrimp onboard. Also, revenue may be increased if a reduction in travel time allows longer fishing. Overall, a fisherman will only choose to incur the increased VMS communication costs associated with transit if they conclude they will receive a net increase in economic benefits, regardless of the source of these benefits. As a result, this component of the rule is expected to have a direct positive economic effect on all affected small entities.

    Combined, the expected effects of the expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC and transit provisions for vessels with rock shrimp on board are expected to range from a minor short term reduction in the average annual gross revenue from rock shrimp to a net positive economic effect on the average rock shrimp vessel. Although the expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC is expected to reduce rock shrimp revenue from this area, the transit provisions are expected to reduce operating costs and potentially increase rock shrimp revenue by allowing more time to harvest rock shrimp from other areas, where permitted.

    The third action in this rule will expand the boundaries of the Stetson-Miami Terrace CHAPC by 490 square miles (1,269 square km), for a total area of 24,018 square miles (62,206 square km). Fishing for snapper-grouper species does not occur normally in this area and fishing for other finfish or golden crab will not be expected to be affected by the expansion of the Stetson-Miami Terrace CHAPC. This action will also establish a gear haul back/drift zone to accommodate the royal red shrimp fishery that occurs in this area. As a result, this component of the rule is not expected to reduce the revenue of any small entities.

    The fourth action will expand the boundaries of the Cape Lookout CHAPC by 10 square miles (26 square km), for a total area of 326 square miles (844 square km). Similar to the expansion of the Stetson-Miami Terrace CHAPC, fishing for snapper-grouper species does not occur normally in this area and fishing for other finfish or golden crab is not expected to be affected because of the small size of the expansion and availability of nearby areas with similar fishable habitat for these species. As a result, this component of the rule is not expected to reduce the revenue of any small entities.

    Among the actions in this rule, only the expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC is expected to directly reduce the revenue of any small entities. Four alternatives, including the no action status quo alternative, were considered for the expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC. Two of these alternatives are included in this rule. The no action alternative was not adopted because it would not have achieved the objective of increasing the protection of deepwater coral ecosystems in the Council's jurisdiction. The second alternative would have increased the area of expansion and, as a result, would result in a larger reduction in fishing revenue to directly affected small entities than this rule. Because the other actions considered in this rule (actions 2-4) would not be expected to result in any negative economic effects on any directly affected small entities, the issue of significant alternatives to reduce any significant negative effects is not relevant.

    This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control number 0648-0205. Since 2003, NMFS has required VMS be installed and maintained on commercially permitted South Atlantic rock shrimp vessels. NMFS estimates the increased VMS ping (signal) rate that would be required would result in increased communication costs for vessels that choose to transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC with rock shrimp onboard. Currently, all vessels actively participating in the rock shrimp fishery have a VMS unit and NMFS has determined that all of those VMS units have the capability to ping at the higher rate. NMFS estimates the increased VMS communications costs for vessels in the rock shrimp fishery that choose to transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC with rock shrimp onboard would be a maximum known cost of $0.06 per ping; however, the total increased communications charges per vessel per year cannot be determined because these costs will depend on how often the vessel transits through the Oculina Bank HAPC. The increased communication costs will be offset by reduced travel costs associated with travel around the HAPC to get to and from the fishing grounds. Allowing transit should increase the amount of time on a trip available for fishing and save on fuel and other vessel maintenance costs. Therefore, there is zero net change in burden costs for this data collection.

    These estimates of the public reporting burden include the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection-of-information.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as small entity compliance guides. As part of the rulemaking process, NMFS prepared a fishery bulletin, which also serves as a small entity compliance guide. The fishery bulletin will be sent to all South Atlantic snapper-grouper and South Atlantic rock shrimp vessel permit holders.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

    Coral, CHAPC, Coral reefs, Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, HAPC, Shrimp, South Atlantic.

    Dated: July 14, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:

    PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC 1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 622.224, paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(iii), (c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(ii), (c)(3)(iii), and (c)(3)(iv) are revised to read as follows:
    § 622.224 Area closures to protect South Atlantic corals.

    (b) Oculina Bank—(1) HAPC. The Oculina Bank HAPC is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points:

    Point North lat. West long. Origin 29°43′29.82″ 80°14′55.27″ 1 29°43′30″ 80°15′48.24″ 2 29°34′51.66″ 80°15′00.78″ 3 29°34′07.38″ 80°15′51.66″ 4 29°29′24.9″ 80°15′15.78″ 5 29°09′32.52″ 80°12′17.22″ 6 29°04′45.18″ 80°10′12″ 7 28°56′01.86″ 80°07′53.64″ 8 28°52′44.4″ 80°07′53.04″ 9 28°47′28.56″ 80°07′07.44″ 10 28°46′13.68″ 80°07′15.9″ 11 28°41′16.32″ 80°05′58.74″ 12 28°35′05.76″ 80°05′14.28″ 13 28°33′50.94″ 80°05′24.6″ 14 28°30′51.36″ 80°04′23.94″ 15 28°30′00″ 80°03′57.3″ 16 28°30′ 80°03′ 17 28°16′ 80°03′ 18 28°04′30″ 80°01′10.08″ 19 28°04′30″ 80°00′ 20 27°30′ 80°00′ 21 27°30′ 79°54″—Point corresponding with intersection with the 100-fathom (183-m) contour, as shown on the latest edition of NOAA chart 11460 Note: Line between point 21 and point 22 follows the 100-fathom (183-m) contour, as shown on the latest edition of NOAA chart 11460 22 28°30′00″ 79°56′56″— Point corresponding with intersection with the 100-fathom (183-m) contour, as shown on the latest edition of NOAA chart 11460 23 28°30′00″ 80°00′46.02″ 24 28°46′00.84″ 80°03′28.5″ 25 28°48′37.14″ 80°03′56.76″ 26 28°53′18.36″ 80°04′48.84″ 27 29°11′19.62″ 80°08′36.9″ 28 29°17′33.96″ 80°10′06.9″ 29 29°23′35.34″ 80°11′30.06″ 30 29°30′15.72″ 80°12′38.88″ 31 29°35′55.86″ 80°13′41.04″ Origin 29°43′29.82″ 80°14′55.27″

    (i) In the Oculina Bank HAPC, no person may:

    (A) Use a bottom longline, bottom trawl, dredge, pot, or trap.

    (B) If aboard a fishing vessel, anchor, use an anchor and chain, or use a grapple and chain.

    (C) Fish for or possess rock shrimp in or from the Oculina Bank HAPC, except a shrimp vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for rock shrimp that possesses rock shrimp may transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC if fishing gear is appropriately stowed. For the purpose of this paragraph, transit means a direct and non-stop continuous course through the area, maintaining a minimum speed of five knots as determined by an operating VMS and a VMS minimum ping rate of 1 ping per 5 minutes; fishing gear appropriately stowed means that doors and nets are out of the water and onboard the deck or below the deck of the vessel.

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) Cape Lookout Lophelia Banks is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points:

    Point North lat. West long. Origin 34°24′36.996″ 75°45′10.998″ 1 34°23′28.998″ 75°43′58.002″ 2 34°27′00″ 75°41′45″ 3 34°27′54″ 75°42′45″ Origin 34°24′36.996″ 75°45′10.998″

    (iii) Stetson Reefs, Savannah and East Florida Lithoherms, and Miami Terrace (Stetson-Miami Terrace) is bounded by—

    (A) Rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points:

    Point North lat. West long. Origin at outer boundary of EEZ 79°00′00″ 1 31°23′37″ 79°00′00″ 2 31°23′37″ 77°16′21″ 3 32°38′37″ 77°16′21″ 4 32°38′21″ 77°34′06″ 5 32°35′24″ 77°37′54″ 6 32°32′18″ 77°40′26″ 7 32°28′42″ 77°44′10″ 8 32°25′51″ 77°47′43″ 9 32°22′40″ 77°52′05″ 10 32°20′58″ 77°56′29″ 11 32°20′30″ 77°57′50″ 12 32°19′53″ 78°00′49″ 13 32°18′44″ 78°04′35″ 14 32°17′35″ 78°07′48″ 15 32°17′15″ 78°10′41″ 16 32°15′50″ 78°14′09″ 17 32°15′20″ 78°15′25″ 18 32°12′15″ 78°16′37″ 19 32°10′26″ 78°18′09″ 20 32°04′42″ 78°21′27″ 21 32°03′41″ 78°24′07″ 22 32°04′58″ 78°29′19″ 23 32°06′59″ 78°30′48″ 24 32°09′27″ 78°31′31″ 25 32°11′23″ 78°32′47″ 26 32°13′09″ 78°34′04″ 27 32°14′08″ 78°34′36″ 28 32°12′48″ 78°36′34″ 29 32°13′07″ 78°39′07″ 30 32°14′17″ 78°40′01″ 31 32°16′20″ 78°40′18″ 32 32°16′33″ 78°42′32″ 33 32°14′26″ 78°43′23″ 34 32°11′14″ 78°45′42″ 35 32°10′19″ 78°49′08″ 36 32°09′42″ 78°52′54″ 37 32°08′15″ 78°56′11″ 38 32°05′00″ 79°00′30″ 39 32°01′54″ 79°02′49″ 40 31°58′40″ 79°04′51″ 41 31°56′32″ 79°06′48″ 42 31°53′27″ 79°09′18″ 43 31°50′56″ 79°11′29″ 44 31°49′07″ 79°13′35″ 45 31°47′56″ 79°16′08″ 46 31°47′11″ 79°16′30″ 47 31°46′29″ 79°16′25″ 48 31°44′31″ 79°17′24″ 49 31°43′20″ 79°18′27″ 50 31°42′26″ 79°20′41″ 51 31°41′09″ 79°22′26″ 52 31°39′36″ 79°23′59″ 53 31°37′54″ 79°25′29″ 54 31°35′57″ 79°27′14″ 55 31°34′14″ 79°28′24″ 56 31°31′08″ 79°29′59″ 57 31°30′26″ 79°29′52″ 58 31°29′11″ 79°30′11″ 59 31°27′58″ 79°31′41″ 60 31°27′06″ 79°32′08″ 61 31°26′22″ 79°32′48″ 62 31°24′21″ 79°33′51″ 63 31°22′53″ 79°34′41″ 64 31°21′03″ 79°36′01″ 65 31°20′00″ 79°37′12″ 66 31°18′34″ 79°38′15″ 67 31°16′49″ 79°38′36″ 68 31°13′06″ 79°38′19″ 70 31°11′04″ 79°38′39″ 70 31°09′28″ 79°39′09″ 71 31°07′44″ 79°40′21″ 72 31°05′53″ 79°41′27″ 73 31°04′40″ 79°42′09″ 74 31°02′58″ 79°42′28″ 75 31°01′03″ 79°42′40″ 76 30°59′50″ 79°42′43″ 77 30°58′27″ 79°42′43″ 78 30°57′15″ 79°42′50″ 79 30°56′09″ 79°43′28″ 80 30°54′49″ 79°44′53″ 81 30°53′44″ 79°46′24″ 82 30°52′47″ 79°47′40″ 83 30°51′45″ 79°48′16″ 84 30°48′36″ 79°49′02″ 85 30°45′24″ 79°49′55″ 86 30°41′36″ 79°51′31″ 87 30°38′38″ 79°52′23″ 88 30°37′00″ 79°52′37.2″ 89 30°37′00″ 80°05′00″ 90 30°34′6.42″ 80°05′54.96″ 91 30°26′59.94″ 80°07′41.22″ 92 30°23′53.28″ 80°08′8.58″ 93 30°19′22.86″ 80°09′22.56″ 94 30°13′17.58″ 80°11′15.24″ 95 30°07′55.68″ 80°12′19.62″ 96 30°00′00″ 80°13′00″ 97 30°00′9″ 80°09′30″ 98 30°03′00″ 80°09′30″ 99 30°03′00″ 80°06′00″ 100 30°04′00″ 80°02′45.6″ 101 29°59′16″ 80°04′11″ 102 29°49′12″ 80°05′44″ 103 29°43′59″ 80°06′24″ 104 29°38′37″ 80°06′53″ 105 29°36′54″ 80°07′18″ 106 29°31′59″ 80°07′32″ 107 29°29′14″ 80°07′18″ 108 29°21′48″ 80°05′01″ 109 29°20′25″ 80°04′29″ 110 29°08′00″ 79°59′43″ 111 29°06′56″ 79°59′07″ 112 29°05′59″ 79°58′44″ 113 29°03′34″ 79°57′37″ 114 29°02′11″ 79°56′59″ 115 29°00′00″ 79°55′32″ 116 28°56′55″ 79°54′22″ 117 28°55′00″ 79°53′31″ 118 28°53′35″ 79°52′51″ 119 28°51′47″ 79°52′07″ 120 28°50′25″ 79°51′27″ 121 28°49′53″ 79°51′20″ 122 28°49′01″ 79°51′20″ 123 28°48′19″ 79°51′10″ 124 28°47′13″ 79°50′59″ 125 28°43′30″ 79°50′36″ 126 28°41′05″ 79°50′04″ 127 28°40′27″ 79°50′07″ 128 28°39′50″ 79°49′56″ 129 28°39′04″ 79°49′58″ 130 28°36′43″ 79°49′35″ 131 28°35′01″ 79°49′24″ 132 28°30′37″ 79°48′35″ 133 28°14′00″ 79°46′20″ 134 28°11′41″ 79°46′12″ 135 28°08′02″ 79°45′45″ 136 28°01′20″ 79°45′20″ 137 27°58′13″ 79°44′51″ 138 27°56′23″ 79°44′53″ 139 27°49′40″ 79°44′25″ 140 27°46′27″ 79°44′22″ 141 27°42′00″ 79°44′33″ 142 27°36′08″ 79°44′58″ 143 27°30′00″ 79°45′29″ 144 27°29′04″ 79°45′47″ 145 27°27′05″ 79°45′54″ 146 27°25′47″ 79°45′57″ 147 27°19′46″ 79°45′14″ 148 27°17′54″ 79°45′12″ 149 27°12′28″ 79°45′00″ 150 27°07′45″ 79°46′07″ 151 27°04′47″ 79°46′29″ 152 27°00′43″ 79°46′39″ 153 26°58′43″ 79°46′28″ 154 26°57′06″ 79°46′32″ 155 26°49′58″ 79°46′54″ 156 26°48′58″ 79°46′56″ 157 26°47′01″ 79°47′09″ 158 26°46′04″ 79°47′09″ 159 26°35′09″ 79°48′01″ 160 26°33′37″ 79°48′21″ 161 26°27′56″ 79°49′09″ 162 26°25′55″ 79°49′30″ 163 26°21′05″ 79°50′03″ 164 26°20′30″ 79°50′20″ 165 26°18′56″ 79°50′17″ 166 26°16′19″ 79°54′06″ 167 26°13′48″ 79°54′48″ 168 26°12′19″ 79°55′37″ 169 26°10′57″ 79°57′05″ 170 26°09′17″ 79°58′45″ 171 26°07′11″ 80°00′22″ 172 26°06′12″ 80°00′33″ 173 26°03′26″ 80°01′02″ 174 26°00′35″ 80°01′13″ 175 25°49′10″ 80°00′38″ 176 25°48′30″ 80°00′23″ 177 25°46′42″ 79°59′14″ 178 25°27′28″ 80°02′26″ 179 25°24′06″ 80°01′44″ 180 25°21′04″ 80°01′27″ 181 25°21′04″ at outer boundary of EEZ

    (B) The outer boundary of the EEZ in a northerly direction from Point 181 to the Origin.

    (3) * * *

    (i) Shrimp access area 1 is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points:

    Point North lat. West long. Origin 30°06′30″ 80°02′2.4″ 1 30°06′30″ 80°05′39.6″ 2 30°03′00″ 80°09′30″ 3 30°03′00″ 80°06′00″ 4 30°04′00″ 80°02′45.6″ 5 29°59′16″ 80°04′11″ 6 29°49′12″ 80°05′44″ 7 29°43′59″ 80°06′24″ 8 29°38′37″ 80°06′53″ 9 29°36′54″ 80°07′18″ 10 29°31′59″ 80°07′32″ 11 29°29′14″ 80°07′18″ 12 29°21′48″ 80°05′01″ 13 29°20′25″ 80°04′29″ 14 29°20′25″ 80°03′11″ 15 29°21′48″ 80°03′52″ 16 29°29′14″ 80°06′08″ 17 29°31′59″ 80°06′23″ 18 29°36′54″ 80°06′00″ 19 29°38′37″ 80°05′43″ 20 29°43′59″ 80°05′14″ 21 29°49′12″ 80°04′35″ 22 29°59′16″ 80°03′01″ 23 30°06′30″ 80°00′53″ Origin 30°06′30″ 80°02′2.4″

    (ii) Shrimp access area 2 is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points:

    Point North lat. West long. Origin 29°08′00″ 79°59′43″ 1 29°06′56″ 79°59′07″ 2 29°05′59″ 79°58′44″ 3 29°03′34″ 79°57′37″ 4 29°02′11″ 79°56′59″ 5 29°00′00″ 79°55′32″ 6 28°56′55″ 79°54′22″ 7 28°55′00″ 79°53′31″ 8 28°53′35″ 79°52′51″ 9 28°51′47″ 79°52′07″ 10 28°50′25″ 79°51′27″ 11 28°49′53″ 79°51′20″ 12 28°49′01″ 79°51′20″ 13 28°48′19″ 79°51′10″ 14 28°47′13″ 79°50′59″ 15 28°43′30″ 79°50′36″ 16 28°41′05″ 79°50′04″ 17 28°40′27″ 79°50′07″ 18 28°39′50″ 79°49′56″ 19 28°39′04″ 79°49′58″ 20 28°36′43″ 79°49′35″ 21 28°35′01″ 79°49′24″ 22 28°30′37″ 79°48′35″ 23 28°30′37″ 79°47′27″ 24 28°35′01″ 79°48′16″ 25 28°36′43″ 79°48′27″ 26 28°39′04″ 79°48′50″ 27 28°39′50″ 79°48′48″ 28 28°40′27″ 79°48′58″ 29 28°41′05″ 79°48′56″ 30 28°43′30″ 79°49′28″ 31 28°47′13″ 79°49′51″ 32 28°48′19″ 79°50′01″ 33 28°49′01″ 79°50′13″ 34 28°49′53″ 79°50′12″ 35 28°50′25″ 79°50′17″ 36 28°51′47″ 79°50′58″ 37 28°53′35″ 79°51′43″ 38 28°55′00″ 79°52′22″ 39 28°56′55″ 79°53′14″ 40 29°00′00″ 79°54′24″ 41 29°02′11″ 79°55′50″ 42 29°03′34″ 79°56′29″ 43 29°05′59″ 79°57′35″ 44 29°06′56″ 79°57′59″ 45 29°08′00″ 79°58′34″ Origin 29°08′00″ 79°59′43″

    (iii) Shrimp access area 3 is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points:

    Point North lat. West long. Origin 28°14′00″ 79°46′20″ 1 28°11′41″ 79°46′12″ 2 28°08′02″ 79°45′45″ 3 28°01′20″ 79°45′20″ 4 27°58′13″ 79°44′51″ 5 27°56′23″ 79°44′53″ 6 27°49′40″ 79°44′25″ 7 27°46′27″ 79°44′22″ 8 27°42′00″ 79°44′33″ 9 27°36′08″ 79°44′58″ 10 27°30′00″ 79°45′29″ 11 27°29′04″ 79°45′47″ 12 27°27′05″ 79°45′54″ 13 27°25′47″ 79°45′57″ 14 27°19′46″ 79°45′14″ 15 27°17′54″ 79°45′12″ 16 27°12′28″ 79°45′00″ 17 27°07′45″ 79°46′07″ 18 27°04′47″ 79°46′29″ 19 27°00′43″ 79°46′39″ 20 26°58′43″ 79°46′28″ 21 26°57′06″ 79°46′32″ 22 26°57′06″ 79°44′52″ 23 26°58′43″ 79°44′47″ 24 27°00′43″ 79°44′58″ 25 27°04′47″ 79°44′48″ 26 27°07′45″ 79°44′26″ 27 27°12′28″ 79°43′19″ 28 27°17′54″ 79°43′31″ 29 27°19′46″ 79°43′33″ 30 27°25′47″ 79°44′15″ 31 27°27′05″ 79°44′12″ 32 27°29′04″ 79°44′06″ 33 27°30′00″ 79°43′48″ 34 27°30′00″ 79°44′22″ 35 27°36′08″ 79°43′50″ 36 27°42′00″ 79°43′25″ 37 27°46′27″ 79°43′14″ 38 27°49′40″ 79°43′17″ 39 27°56′23″ 79°43′45″ 40 27°58′13″ 79°43′43″ 41 28°01′20″ 79°44′11″ 42 28°04′42″ 79°44′25″ 43 28°08′02″ 79°44′37″ 44 28°11′41″ 79°45′04″ 45 28°14′00″ 79°45′12″ Origin 28°14′00″ 79°46′20″

    (iv) Shrimp access area 4 is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points:

    Point North lat. West long. Origin 26°49′58″ 79°46′54″ 1 26°48′58″ 79°46′56″ 2 26°47′01″ 79°47′09″ 3 26°46′04″ 79°47′09″ 4 26°35′09″ 79°48′01″ 5 26°33′37″ 79°48′21″ 6 26°27′56″ 79°49′09″ 7 26°25′55″ 79°49′30″ 8 26°21′05″ 79°50′03″ 9 26°20′30″ 79°50′20″ 10 26°18′56″ 79°50′17″ 11 26°18′56″ 79°48′37″ 12 26°20′30″ 79°48′40″ 13 26°21′05″ 79°48′08″ 14 26°25′55″ 79°47′49″ 15 26°27′56″ 79°47′29″ 16 26°33′37″ 79°46′40″ 17 26°35′09″ 79°46′20″ 18 26°46′04″ 79°45′28″ 19 26°47′01″ 79°45′28″ 20 26°48′58″ 79°45′15″ 21 26°49′58″ 79°45′13″ Origin 26°49′58″ 79°46′54″
    [FR Doc. 2015-17617 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 137 Friday, July 17, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 429 [Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005] Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee: Notice of Open Meetings and Webinars AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meetings and webinars.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a series of meetings of the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that agencies publish notice of an advisory committee meeting in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting dates.

    ADDRESSES:

    Unless otherwise specified in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, the meetings will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. To register for the webinars and receive call-in information, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more details.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Cymbalsky, ASRAC Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meetings will be held:

    • July 30, 2015 (Webinar Only), 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (EDT), https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/8831742855231072001. • August 13, 2015 (Webinar Only), 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EDT), https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/2047714330411380993. • September 24, 2015, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/1929913754123106049.

    Members of the public are welcome to observe the business of the meeting and, if time allows, may make oral statements during the specified period for public comment. To attend the meeting and/or to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, email [email protected] In the email, please indicate your name, organization (if appropriate), citizenship, and contact information. Please note that foreign nationals participating in the public meeting are subject to advance security screening procedures which require advance notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. If a foreign national wishes to participate in the public meeting, please inform DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Regina Washington at (202) 586-1214 or by email: [email protected] so that the necessary procedures can be completed. Anyone attending the meeting will be required to present a government photo identification, such as a passport, driver's license, or government identification. Due to the required security screening upon entry, individuals attending should arrive early to allow for the extra time needed.

    Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recent changes regarding ID requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from specific states and U.S. territories. Driver's licenses from the following states or territory will not be accepted for building entry and one of the alternate forms of ID listed below will be required.

    DHS has determined that regular driver's licenses (and ID cards) from the following jurisdictions are not acceptable for entry into DOE facilities: Alaska, Louisiana, New York, American Samoa, Maine, Oklahoma, Arizona, Massachusetts, Washington, and Minnesota.

    Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or Passport Card; An Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card issued by the states of Minnesota, New York or Washington (Enhanced licenses issued by these states are clearly marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's License); A military ID or other Federal government issued Photo-ID card.

    Docket: The docket is available for review at www.regulations.gov, including Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 14, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17642 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1649; Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-6] Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Columbus, Ohio State University Airport, OH, and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Columbus, OH AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before August 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend controlled airspace at Ohio State University Airport, Columbus, OH.

    Comments Invited

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

    Availability of NPRMs

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

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

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

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

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

    Class D and E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 5000, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air)

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. AGL OH D Columbus, Ohio State University Airport, OH [Amended] Columbus, Ohio State University Airport, OH (Lat. 40°04′47″ N., long. 83°04′23″ W.)

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

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

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

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on July 7, 2015. Robert W. Beck, Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17487 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0842; Airspace Docket No. 15-ACE-2] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace for the following Missouri towns: Chillicothe, MO; Cuba, MO; Farmington, MO; Lamar, MO; Mountain View, MO; Nevada, MO; and Poplar Bluff, MO AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Chillicothe Municipal Airport, Chillicothe, MO; Cuba Municipal Airport, Cuba, MO; Farmington Regional Airport, Farmington, MO; Lamar Municipal Airport, Lamar, MO; Mountain View Airport, Mountain View, MO; Nevada Municipal Airport, Nevada, MO; and Poplar Bluff Municipal Airport, Poplar Bluff, MO. Decommissioning of the non-directional radio beacons (NDB) and/or cancellation of NDB approaches due to advances in Global Positioning System (GPS) capabilities has made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the above airports. Geographic coordinates are also adjusted at Lamar Municipal Airport, Lamar, MO; and Nevada Municipal Airport, Nevada, MO.

    DATES:

    0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before August 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC. 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2015-0842/Airspace Docket No. 15-ACE-2, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend controlled airspace at the Missouri airports listed in this NPRM.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-0842/Airspace Docket No. 15-ACE-2.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

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

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

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

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for standard instrument approach procedures (SIAP) at Chillicothe Municipal Airport, Chillicothe, MO; Cuba Municipal Airport, Cuba, MO; Farmington Regional Airport, Farmington, MO; Lamar Municipal Airport, Lamar, MO; Mountain View Airport, Mountain View, MO; Nevada Municipal Airport, Nevada, MO; and Poplar Bluff Municipal Airport, Poplar Bluff, MO. Also, Class E airspace extending upward from the surface would be amended at Farmington Regional Airport, Farmington, MO. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of NDBs and/or cancellation of the NDB approach at each airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations for SIAPs at the airports. Geographic coordinates also would be adjusted for Lamar Municipal Airport, Lamar, MO; Nevada Municipal Airport, Nevada, MO; and Poplar Bluff Municipal Airport, Poplar Bluff, MO, to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air)

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas ACE MO E2 Farmington, MO [Amended] Farmington Regional Airport, MO (Lat. 37°45′40″ N., long. 90°25′43″ W.) Within a 3.9-mile radius of Farmington Regional Airport and within 1.7 miles each side of the 202° bearing from the airport extending from the 3.9-mile radius to 4 miles south of the airport. Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth. ACE MO E5 Chillicothe, MO [Amended] Chillicothe Municipal Airport, MO (Lat. 39°46′56″ N., long. 93°29′44″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of Chillicothe Municipal Airport.

    ACE MO E5 Cuba, MO [Amended] Cuba Municipal Airport, MO (Lat. 38°04′08″ N., long. 91°25′44″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the Cuba Municipal Airport.

    ACE MO E5 Farmington, MO [Amended] Farmington Regional Airport, MO (Lat. 37°45′40″ N., long. 90°25′43″ W.) Farmington VORTAC (Lat. 37°40′24″ N., long. 90°14′03″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Farmington Regional Airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 204° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 11.5 miles southwest of the airport, and within 1.3 miles each side of the Farmington VORTAC 300° radial extending from the 6.4-mile radius of the airport to the VORTAC.

    ACE MO E5 Lamar, MO [Amended] Lamar Municipal Airport, MO (Lat. 37°29′10″ N., long. 94°18′43″W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Lamar Municipal Airport.

    ACE MO E5  Mountain View, MO [Amended] Mountain View Airport, MO (Lat. 36°59′34″ N., long. 91°42′52″ W.)

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

    ACE MO E5 Nevada, MO [Amended] Nevada Municipal Airport, MO (Lat. 37°51′09″ N., long. 94°18′17″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Nevada Municipal Airport.

    ACE MO E5 Poplar Bluff, MO [Amended] Poplar Bluff Municipal Airport, MO (Lat. 36°46′26″ N., long. 90°19'30″ W.)

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

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on July 7, 2015 Robert W. Beck Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17501 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 1251 [Docket No. CPSC-2011-0081] Toys: Determination Regarding Heavy Elements Limits for Unfinished and Untreated Wood AGENCY:

    U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission” or “CPSC”) is proposing to determine that unfinished and untreated trunk wood does not contain heavy elements that would exceed the limits specified in the Commission's toy standard, ASTM F963-11. Based on this proposed determination, unfinished and untreated trunk wood in toys would not require third party testing. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, the Commission is issuing this determination as a direct final rule. If we receive no significant adverse comment in response to the direct final rule, we will not take further action on this proposed rule.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by August 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2011-0081, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.

    Written Submissions: Submit written submissions by mail/hand delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to: www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at all, such information should be submitted in writing.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to: www.regulations.gov, and insert the docket number CPSC-2011-0081, into the “Search” box, and follow the prompts.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Randy Butturini, Project Manager, Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Hwy, Room 814, Bethesda, MD 20814; 301-504-7562: email; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Along with this proposed rule, CPSC is publishing a direct final rule in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this issue of the Federal Register. This direct final rule establishes a determination that unfinished and untreated trunk wood does not contain heavy elements that would exceed the heavy elements limits specified in the Commission's mandatory toy standard, ASTM F963-11. Based on this determination, unfinished and untreated trunk wood in toys does not require third party testing. CPSC did not issue a proposed rule before today because CPSC believes that this action is not controversial and CPSC does not expect significant adverse comment. CPSC has explained the reasons for the determination in the direct final rule. Unless CPSC receives significant adverse comment regarding the determination during the comment period, the direct final rule in this issue of the Federal Register will become effective September 15, 2015, and CPSC will not take further action on this proposal. If CPSC receives a significant adverse comment, CPSC will publish a document in the Federal Register withdrawing the direct final rule, and the rule will not take effect. CPSC will then respond to public comments in a later final rule, based on this proposed rule. CPSC does not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Parties interested in commenting on this determination must do so at this time. For additional information, please see the direct final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this issue of the Federal Register.

    Dated: July 13, 2015. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17414 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-135524-14] RIN 1545-BM63 Property Transferred in Connection With the Performance of Services AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains proposed regulations relating to property transferred in connection with the performance of services. These proposed regulations affect certain taxpayers who receive property transferred in connection with the performance of services and make an election to include the value of substantially nonvested property in income in the year of transfer.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by October 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-135524-14), room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-135524-14), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov/ (IRS REG-135524-14).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning these proposed regulations, Thomas Scholz or Michael Hughes at (202) 317-5600 (not a toll-free number); concerning submissions of comments, and/or to request a hearing, Regina Johnson, at (202) 317-6901 (not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Section 83(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) provides generally that if, in connection with the performance of services, property is transferred to any person other than the person for whom such services are performed, the excess of the fair market value of the property (determined without regard to any restriction other than a restriction which by its terms will never lapse) as of the first time that the transferee's rights in the property are transferable or are not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture, whichever occurs earlier, over the amount (if any) paid for the property is included in the service provider's gross income for the taxable year which includes such time. Section 83(b) and § 1.83-2(a) permit the service provider to elect to include in gross income, as compensation for services, the excess (if any) of the fair market value of the property at the time of transfer over the amount (if any) paid for the property.

    Under section 83(b)(2), an election made under section 83(b) must be made in accordance with the regulations thereunder and must be filed with the IRS no later than 30 days after the date on which the property is transferred to the service provider. Under § 1.83-2(c), an election under section 83(b) is made by filing a copy of a written statement with the IRS office with which the person who performed the services files his or her return. In addition, the person who performed the services is required to submit a copy of such statement with his or her income tax return for the taxable year in which such property was transferred. Section 1.83-2(d) requires that the person who performed the services also submit a copy of the section 83(b) election to the person for whom the services were performed.

    In recent years, it has come to the attention of the IRS that many taxpayers who wish to electronically file (e-file) their annual income tax return have been unable to do so because of the requirement in § 1.83-2(c) that they submit a copy of their section 83(b) election with their income tax return. Commercial software available for e-filing income tax returns does not consistently provide a mechanism for submitting a section 83(b) election with an individual's e-filed return. As a result, an individual who has made a section 83(b) election may be unable to e-file his or her return and at the same time comply with the requirement in § 1.83-2(c) that a copy of the section 83(b) election be submitted with the return. An individual who made a section 83(b) election would be required to paper file his or her income tax return to comply with the requirements under § 1.83-2(c).

    Since the introduction of the e-file program, the IRS has encouraged taxpayers to file returns electronically. The e-file program reduces the amount of paper the government must process, and this reduction of paper processing allows the IRS to be more efficient and use valuable resources to address other critical work.

    In order to remove this obstacle to e-filing an individual tax return, the proposed regulations would eliminate the requirement under § 1.83-2(c) that a copy of the section 83(b) election be submitted with an individual's tax return for the year the property is transferred. As described in this preamble, section 83(b)(2) requires that an election made under section 83(b) be filed with the IRS no later than 30 days after the date that the property is transferred to the service provider. This statutory requirement provides the IRS with the original section 83(b) election. Section 83(b) elections are scanned by the service center receiving the election, and an electronic copy of the election is generated. The creation of this electronic copy of the section 83(b) election eliminates the need for a taxpayer to submit a copy of the section 83(b) election with his or her individual tax return.

    Taxpayers are reminded of their general recordkeeping responsibilities pursuant to section 6001 of the Code, and more specifically of the need to keep records that show the basis of property owned by the taxpayer. Taxpayers must maintain sufficient records to show the original cost of the property and to support the tax treatment of the property transfer reported on the taxpayers' returns. Taxpayers must keep these records as long as they may be needed for the administration of any provision of the Code. Generally, this means records that support items shown on a return must be retained until the period of limitations for that return expires. See section 6501 of the Code. A copy of any section 83(b) election made with respect to property must be kept until the period of limitations expires for the return that reports the sale or other disposition of the property.

    Explanation of Provisions

    The proposed regulations would remove the second sentence in § 1.83-2(c) of the existing regulations. This would eliminate the requirement that taxpayers submit a copy of a section 83(b) election with their tax return for the year in which the property subject to the election was transferred.

    Proposed Effective Date

    These regulations under section 83 are proposed to apply as of January 1, 2016, and would apply to property transferred on or after that date. Taxpayers may rely on these proposed regulations for property transferred on or after January 1, 2015.

    Special Analyses

    It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.

    Comments and Request for Public Hearing

    Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are timely submitted to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the ADDRESSES heading. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed rules. All comments will be available at www.regulations.gov or upon request. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written or electronic comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the hearing will be published in the Federal Register.

    Drafting Information

    The principal authors of these proposed regulations are Thomas Scholz and Michael Hughes, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

    List of Subjects 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.83-2 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 1.83-2 Election to include in gross income in year of transfer.

    (c) Manner of making election. The election referred to in paragraph (a) of this section is made by filing one copy of a written statement with the internal revenue office with which the person who performed the services files his return.

    (g) Effective/applicability date. Paragraph (c) of this section applies to property transferred on or after January 1, 2016.

    John M. Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17530 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0004] RIN 1625-AA11 Regulated Navigation Area; Middle Waterway Superfund Cleanup Site, Commencement Bay; Tacoma, WA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a regulated navigation area (RNA) on the Middle Waterway in Tacoma, Washington. The RNA will protect the sediment cap areas in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats (CB-NT) Superfund Cleanup Site in the Middle Waterway Problem Area. This regulated navigation area would prohibit activities that could disrupt the integrity of the engineered sediment caps that have been placed within the Middle Waterway Problem Area. These activities include vessel grounding, anchoring, dragging, trawling, spudding or other such activities that would disturb the integrity of the sediment caps. It will not affect transit or navigation of this area or the existing industrial activities occurring in this area.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before October 15, 2015. Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email LTJG Johnny Zeng, Waterways Management Division, Sector Puget Sound, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (206) 217-6175, 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 DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 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-2015-0004] 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-2015-0004) 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

    The Coast Guard received notice from the U.S. EPA requesting the establishment of a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) for the Middle Waterway Problem Area of the CB-NT Superfund Cleanup Site in Tacoma, Washington. This request was received as a result of the need to protect the engineered sediment caps in the Middle Waterway from activities that could disrupt the integrity of the caps within the CB-NT Superfund Cleanup Site.

    The CB-NT was added to the U.S. EPA's National Priorities List (Superfund) in September 1983 because of hazardous substance contamination in the sediment. The EPA selected the Middle Waterway Problem Area for remedial action, and subsequently cleanup activities were conducted pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

    Remediation activities identified for the Middle Waterway included dredging, placement of enhanced natural recovery material, placement of caps, and natural recovery. The caps consist of approximately three feet of sand and gravel and light-loose riprap, and were placed in various locations within the waterway to contain the contaminated sediments. These caps were designed to withstand activities common to a working waterfront. The cap areas cover approximately two acres of sediment in the waterway. Construction activities were initiated in July 2003 and completed in January 2005. A Remedial Action Completion Report documenting the cleanup activities was completed and approved by the U.S. EPA in April 2005.

    C. Basis and Purpose

    Under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the Coast Guard has the authority to establish RNAs in defined water areas that are determined to have hazardous conditions and in which vessel traffic can be regulated in the interest of safety. See 33 U.S.C. 1231 and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Coast Guard District Commanders are granted authority under 33 CFR 165.11 to regulate vessel traffic in areas with hazardous conditions. This rule is necessary to prevent disturbance of the sediment caps established in the Middle Waterway Problem Area of the CB-NT Superfund Cleanup Site. Disruption of the integrity of the caps may result in a hazardous condition and harm to the marine environment. As such, this RNA is necessary to protect the integrity of the caps and will do so by prohibiting maritime activities that could disturb or damage them. Enforcement of this RNA will be managed by Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound assets including Vessel Traffic Service Puget Sound through radar and closed circuit television sensors. The Captain of the Port Puget Sound may also be assisted by other state, local, or government agencies in the enforcement of this rule.

    D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent RNA on the Middle Waterway to protect the sediment caps in the Middle Waterway Problem Area of the CB-NT Superfund Site. It would do so by restricting vessel anchoring, dragging, trawling, spudding or other activities that could disrupt the integrity of the caps and the underlying contaminated sediments located in the proposed RNA. Activities common in the proposed regulated areas include tugboat and log-rafting activities, tugboat moorage, removal and launching of ships for repair, and other ship repair and maintenance activities. The cap areas were designed to be compatible with the activities described above that are associated with a working waterfront. The material used for the caps was chosen to be able to contain underlying sediments without altering the main activities of the working waterway.

    E. Regulatory Analyses

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

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This expectation is based on the fact that the RNA established by the rule would encompass a small area that should not impact commercial or recreational traffic, and the prohibited activities are not routine for the designated areas.

    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 would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to anchor, drag, dredge, trawl, spud, or disturb the riverbed in any fashion when this rule is in effect. The RNA would not have a significant economic impact on small entities due to its small area and waiver process for legitimate use.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this 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 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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

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

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed rule is not economically significant 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. The Coast Guard and EPA consulted with the Puyallup tribe in coming to this determination.

    12. Energy Effects

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

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a regulated navigation area which prevents activities which would disturb the riverbed within the areas outlined in this regulation. This proposed rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    33 CFR Part 165

    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 § 165.1342 to subpart F under the undesignated center heading Thirteenth Coastguard District to read as follows:
    § 165.1342 Regulated Navigation Area; Middle Waterway Superfund Cleanup Site, Commencement Bay; Tacoma, WA

    (a) Regulated Areas. The following areas are regulated navigation areas: All waters within the Middle Waterway south of a line connecting a point on the shore at 47°15′51″ N, 122°25′53″ W; thence southwest to 47°15′47″ N, 122°25′59″ W [Datum: NAD 1983].

    (b) Regulations. (1) All vessels and persons are prohibited from activities that would disturb the seabed, such as grounding, anchoring, dragging, trawling, spudding, or other activities that involve disrupting the integrity of the caps within the designated regulated navigation area, pursuant to the remediation efforts of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Middle Waterway's EPA superfund cleanup site. Vessels may otherwise transit or navigate within this area in accordance with the Navigation Rules.

    (2) The prohibition described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not apply to vessels or persons engaged in activities associated with remediation efforts in the Middle Waterway superfund sites, provided that the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound (COTP), is given advance notice of those activities by the EPA.

    (c) Waivers. Upon written request stating the need and proposed conditions of the waiver, and any proposed precautionary measures, the COTP may authorize a waiver from this section if the COTP determines that the activity for which the waiver is sought can take place without undue risk to the remediation efforts described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The COTP will consult with EPA in making this determination when necessary and practicable.

    Dated: June 22, 2015. R. T. Gromlich, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17481 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0193; FRL-9930-40-Region 5] Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; Lead Rule Revisions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a request submitted on March 14, 2013, and supplemented on November 17, 2014, by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to revise the state implementation plan for lead. The submittal updates Indiana's lead rule at Title 326 of the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC), Article 15. It also amends 326 IAC Article 20, to incorporate some of the provisions of EPA's National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for secondary lead smelters. IDEM made the revisions to increase the stringency and clarity of Indiana's lead SIP rules.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0193 by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.

    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving a portion of the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If EPA does not receive adverse comments in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and will address all public comments received in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule, and if that provision can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: July 2, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17473 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0283; FRL-9930-68-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to the Minor New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Portable Facilities AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on March 19, 2010 and July 2, 2010. These revisions to the Texas SIP revise the minor New Source Review (NSR) program to provide for the relocation and change of location of permitted portable facilities, establish definitions related to portable facilities, and establish public participation for changes of location to portable facilities. The EPA proposes to find that these revisions to the Texas SIP comply with the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA) and are consistent with our regulations and policy for minor NSR. The EPA is proposing these actions under section 110 of the Act.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before August 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0283, by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: Ms. Aimee Wilson at [email protected]

    Mail or delivery: Ms. Aimee Wilson, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0283. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information through http://www.regulations.gov or email, if you believe that it is CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means that the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment along with any disk or CD-ROM submitted. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Aimee Wilson, (214) 665-7596; email [email protected] To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Ms. Wilson or contact Mr. Bill Deese at (214) 665-7253.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. Background A. CAA and SIPs

    The Act at section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to develop and submit to the EPA for approval into the state SIP, preconstruction review and permitting programs applicable to certain new and modified stationary sources of air pollutants for attainment and nonattainment areas that cover both major and minor new sources and modifications, collectively referred to as the NSR SIP. The CAA NSR SIP program is composed of three separate programs: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR), and minor NSR.

    The minor NSR SIP program addresses construction or modification activities that do not emit, or have the potential to emit, beyond certain major source/major modification thresholds and thus do not qualify as “major” and applies regardless of the designation of the area in which a source is located. Any submitted SIP revision, including revisions to a minor NSR program, must meet the applicable requirements for SIP elements in section 110 of the Act, and be consistent with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.

    The EPA is proposing to approve portions of the March 19, 2010 and July 2, 2010 Texas SIP submittals as revisions to the Texas minor NSR SIP for portable facilities. This action only addresses the provisions relevant to the portable facilities program—30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) sections 116.120 and 116.178 submitted on March 19, 2010 and 30 TAC section 39.402(a)(12) submitted on July 2, 2010. These provisions collectively establish the definitions applicable to portable facilities, criteria for relocating and changing the location of portable facilities, and public notice requirements for portable facilities.

    B. Overview of the Portable Facilities Program 1. March 19, 2010 SIP Submittal

    The TCEQ submitted to the EPA revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to address definitions related to portable facilities and rules regarding the relocation and changes of location of portable facilities on March 19, 2010. Texas previously adopted the revisions to the SIP on February 12, 2010; specifically definitions pertaining to portable facilities at 30 TAC section 116.20 and provisions for the relocation and change of location of portable facilities at 30 TAC section 116.178.

    2. July 2, 2010 SIP Submittal

    On June 2, 2010, the TCEQ adopted revisions to the State Implementation Plan to adopt amendments made to the 30 TAC Chapter 39 Public Notice provisions for NSR permits, including provisions specific to portable facilities at 30 TAC section 39.402(a)(12). The revisions were submitted to the EPA on July 2, 2010. As detailed in the Technical Support Document (TSD), this action will only address 30 TAC section 39.402(a)(12); all other portions of this SIP submittal have been addressed by the EPA in separate actions.

    II. The EPA's Evaluation

    The SIP submittals being evaluated as part of this rulemaking provide for the movement of existing portable facilities permitted under the Texas minor NSR program; therefore, the provisions for the change of location or relocation of portable facilities are evaluated against the federal requirements for minor NSR at 40 CFR 51.160-51.164 and in conjunction with the existing SIP-approved provisions of the Texas minor NSR permitting program. All portable facilities are permitted under the existing minor NSR SIP provisions in Chapter 116. The portable facilities are either permitted through a case-by case minor NSR permit subject to the requirements under 30 TAC sections 116.110-116.115 or through a Standard Permit issued under 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter F. The EPA has previously approved these minor NSR permitting mechanisms as consistent with Federal minor NSR requirements.

    The TCEQ issues the underlying minor NSR portable facility permits to be protective of the NAAQS and increment. 30 TAC sections 116.20 and 116.178 provide that once a permit has been issued to a portable facility, the facility can be moved either through a change of location or a relocation. A change of location occurs when a portable facility is moved to a new location and is required to go through the SIP-approved minor NSR public notice requirements of Chapter 39. A relocation of a portable facility is movement of the portable facility without public notice under Chapter 39. Relocations occur in one of two scenarios. First, portable facilities can be relocated to a location in support of a public works project in which the new site is located in or contiguous to the right-of way of the public works project. The second possibility, is that a portable facility relocates to a site in which a portable facility has previously been located at any time during the previous two years and the site was subject Chapter 39 public notice requirements. Public notice requirements for the change of location or relocation of a portable facility are established at 30 TAC section 39.402(a)(12). Our evaluation summarized below, and detailed more fully in our accompanying TSD, demonstrates that the portable facilities program satisfies applicable requirements for minor NSR programs.

    The change of location or relocation of a portable facility permit does not change the underlying portable facility permit requirements and does not establish a new minor NSR permit. Rather, these provisions enable an existing permitted facility to move as provided under the portable designation. Under both a change of location or relocation, the minor NSR permit (either a case-by-case minor NSR permit issued under 30 TAC sections 116.110-116.115 or a Standard Permit issued under 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter F) was required to conduct a health impact and air quality analysis prior to issuance. The TCEQ's record demonstrates that emissions associated with portable facilities are typically minimal and the underlying permit contains the appropriate emission limits, permit terms, and conditions to ensure that the portable facility will have minimal environmental impacts at the property line. Additionally, the TCEQ has the responsibility to review each request for a change of location or relocation of a portable facility; the TCEQ will deny a request for a change of location or relocation if movement will result in adverse impacts on attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or increment violations.

    The EPA's minor NSR regulations require public notice for each minor NSR permit. Because neither the change of location nor relocation of a portable facility results in a new minor NSR permit than the permit that was originally public noticed, there is no specific federal requirement for a new public notice. Relocations of portable facilities with minor NSR permits can occur since there is no underlying change to the permit terms and conditions and the TCEQ evaluates each requested relocation for adverse environmental impacts on attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or increment violations.

    The EPA has also evaluated the March 19, 2010 and July 2, 2010 revisions pertaining to Portable Facilities under section 110(l) of the Act. We have preliminarily determined that the TCEQ satisfied all procedural requirements pursuant to section 110(l) as detailed in our accompanying TSD. Further, the EPA has preliminarily determined that the Portable Facilities SIP revisions satisfy the minimum requirements for a minor NSR program, including adequate provisions for legal enforceability and public participation to ensure protection of the control strategy and any applicable NAAQS. The Portable Facilities program also contains sufficient safeguards to prevent circumvention of Major NSR permitting requirements. Therefore, we find that the Portable Facilities program is protective of the NAAQS, increment, attainment and reasonable further progress, and any other applicable control strategy requirements and will therefore satisfy the requirements of section 110(l) of the Act.

    III. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve portions of the March 19, 2010 and July 2, 2010, revisions to the Texas SIP to revise the minor NSR program for portable facilities. We have evaluated the SIP submissions for whether they meet the Act and 40 CFR part 51, and are consistent with EPA's interpretation of the relevant provisions. Based upon our evaluation, the EPA is preliminarily concluding that the March 9, 2010 and July 2, 2010, SIP revision submittals for portable facilities and public participation for portable facilities meet the applicable requirements of the Act and 40 CFR part 51. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the following provisions pertaining to portable facilities into the Texas minor NSR SIP:

    • 30 TAC section 116.20 adopted on February 10, 2010, submitted on March 19, 2010;

    • 30 TAC section 116.178 adopted on February 10, 2010, submitted on March 19, 2010; and

    • 30 TAC section 39.402(a)(12) adopted on June 2, 2010, submitted on July 2, 2010.

    The EPA is proposing this action under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). After review and consideration of public comments, we will take final action on the SIP revisions that are identified herein.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

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

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 8, 2015. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17468 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0950; FRL-9930-53-Region 1] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Hampshire; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from New Hampshire regarding the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2008 lead (Pb), 2008 8-hr ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is also proposing to convert conditional approvals for several infrastructure requirements for the 1997 and 2006 fine particle (PM2.5) NAAQS to full approval under the CAA. Furthermore, we are proposing to update the classifications for several of New Hampshire's air quality control regions for ozone and sulfur dioxide based on recent air quality monitoring data collected by the state, and to grant the state's request for an exemption from the infrastructure SIP contingency plan obligation for ozone. Last, we are proposing to conditionally approve certain elements of New Hampshire's submittal relating to prevention of significant deterioration requirements.

    The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate Docket ID number as indicated in the instructions section below, by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Fax: (617) 918-0047.

    4. Mail: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch, Mail Code OEP05-2, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109-3912.

    5. Hand Delivery: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch, Mail Code OEP05-2, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109-3912. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID. EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0950. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, Air Programs Branch, 5 Post Office Square, Boston, Massachusetts. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109-3912; (617) 918-1046; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

    I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? II. What is the background of these State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions? A. What New Hampshire SIP submissions does this rulemaking address? B. Why did the state make these SIP submissions? C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions? IV. What is the result of EPA's review of these SIP submissions? A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission limits and other control measures B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient air quality monitoring/data system C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for enforcement of control measures and for construction or modification of stationary sources i. Sub-element 1: Enforcement of SIP measures ii. Sub-element 2: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program for major sources and major modifications iii. Sub-element 3: Preconstruction permitting for minor sources and minor modifications D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate transport i. Sub-element 1: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Contribute to nonattainment (prong 1) and interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS(prong 2) ii. Sub-element 2: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—PSD (prong 3) iii. Sub-element 3: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Visibility protection (prong 4) iv. Sub-element 4: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—Interstate pollution abatement v. Sub-element 5: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—International pollution abatement E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate resources F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary source monitoring system G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency powers H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP revisions I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation with government officials; public notifications; PSD; visibility protection i. Sub-element 1: Consultation with government officials ii. Sub-element 2: Public notification iii. Sub-element 3: PSD iv. Visibility protection K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air quality modeling/data L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting fees M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/participation by affected local entities V. What action is EPA taking? VI. Incorporation by Reference VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:

    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).

    2. Follow directions—EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    II. What is the background of these State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions? A. What New Hampshire SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?

    This rulemaking addresses submissions from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH-DES). The state submitted its infrastructure SIP for each NAAQS on the following dates: 2008 Pb—November 7, 2011; 2008 ozone—December 31, 2012; 2010 NO2—January 28, 2013; and, 2010 SO2—September 13, 2013.

    This rulemaking also addresses certain infrastructure SIP elements for the 1997 and 2006 fine particle (PM2.5) 1 NAAQS for which EPA previously issued a conditional approval. See 77 FR 63228, October 16, 2012. The state submitted these infrastructure SIPs on April 3, 2008, and September 18, 2009, respectively.

    1 PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in diameter, oftentimes referred to as “fine” particles.

    B. Why did the state make these SIP submissions?

    Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. These submissions must contain any revisions needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that their existing SIPs for the NAAQS already meet those requirements.

    EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007, guidance document entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (2007 Memo). On September 25, 2009, EPA issued an additional guidance document pertaining to the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)” (2009 Memo), followed by the October 14, 2011, “Guidance on infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)” (2011 Memo). Most recently, EPA issued “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)” on September 13, 2013 (2013 Memo). The SIP submissions referenced in this rulemaking pertain to the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) and address the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and to elements of New Hampshire's submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS which we previously conditionally approved. See 77 FR 63228, October 16, 2012. To the extent that the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program is comprehensive and non-NAAQS specific, a narrow evaluation of other NAAQS, such as the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, will be included in the appropriate sections.

    C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from New Hampshire that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, we are proposing to convert conditional approvals for several infrastructure requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (See 77 FR 63228, October 16, 2012) to full approval, proposing approval of the statutes submitted by New Hampshire that support the infrastructure SIP submittals, and proposing to conditionally approve certain aspects of the infrastructure SIP which pertain to the State's PSD program.

    The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2). Pursuant to these sections, each state must submit a SIP that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each primary or secondary NAAQS. States must make such SIP submission “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of” a new or revised NAAQS. This requirement is triggered by the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS and is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any other action. Section 110(a)(2) includes the specific elements that “each such plan” must address.

    EPA commonly refers to such SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA.

    This rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas that are not integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources (“SSM” emissions) that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that purport to permit revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits with limited public process or without requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (“director's discretion”); and, (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final New Source Review (NSR) Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). Instead, EPA has the authority to address each one of these substantive areas separately. A detailed history, interpretation, and rationale for EPA's approach to infrastructure SIP requirements can be found in EPA's May 13, 2014, proposed rule entitled, “Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS” in the section, “What is the scope of this rulemaking?” (See 79 FR 27241 at 27242-27245).

    III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?

    EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate. Historically, EPA has elected to use non-binding guidance documents to make recommendations for states' development and EPA review of infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements. EPA guidance applicable to these infrastructure SIP submissions is embodied in several documents. Specifically, attachment A of the 2007 Memo (Required Section 110 SIP Elements) identifies the statutory elements that states need to submit in order to satisfy the requirements for an infrastructure SIP submission. The 2009 Memo provides additional guidance for certain elements regarding the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2011 Memo provides guidance specific to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Lastly, the 2013 Memo identifies and further clarifies aspects of infrastructure SIPs that are not NAAQS specific.

    IV. What is the result of EPA's review of these SIP submissions?

    Pursuant to section 110(a), and as noted in the 2011 Memo and the 2013 Memo, states must provide reasonable notice and opportunity for public hearing for all infrastructure SIP submissions. NH-DES held public hearings for each infrastructure SIP on the following dates: 2008 Pb—October 3, 2011; 2008 ozone—December 31, 2012; 2010 NO2—January 16, 2013; and, 2010 SO2—May 24, 2013. New Hampshire received comments from EPA on each of its proposed infrastructure SIPs, and also received comments from the Sierra Club on its proposed SO2 infrastructure SIP. EPA is also soliciting comment on our evaluation of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions in this notice of proposed rulemaking. New Hampshire provided detailed synopses of how various components of its SIP meet each of the requirements in section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, as applicable. The following review evaluates the state's submissions in light of section 110(a)(2) requirements and relevant EPA guidance. The review also evaluates certain infrastructure requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for which EPA previously issued a conditional approval. (See 77 FR 63228, October 16, 2012).

    A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

    This section requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for compliance, and other related matters. However, EPA has long interpreted emission limits and control measures for attaining the standards as being due when nonattainment planning requirements are due.2 In the context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating the existing SIP provisions for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only evaluating whether the state's SIP has basic structural provisions for the implementation of the NAAQS.

    2 See, e.g., EPA's final rule on “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead.” 73 FR 66964, 67034 (Nov. 12, 2008).

    New Hampshire's Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) at Chapter 21-O established the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH-DES), and RSA Chapter 125-C provides the Commissioner of NH-DES with the authority to develop rules and regulations necessary to meet state and Federal ambient air quality standards. New Hampshire also has SIP-approved provisions for specific pollutants. For example, NH-DES has adopted primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for each of these pollutants in its Chapter Env-A 300 Ambient Air Quality Standards, as follows: for PM2.5, Part Env-A 303; for SO2, Part Env-A 304; for NO2, Part Env-A 306; for ozone, Part Env-A 307; and, for lead, Part Env-A 308. As noted in EPA's approval of New Hampshire's Chapter Env-A 300, Ambient Air Quality Standards, on June 24, 2014 (79 FR 35695), New Hampshire's standards are consistent with the current federal NAAQS. Therefore, EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. In addition, we previously issued a conditional approval for New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submittal made for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS because portions of Env-A 300 were outdated. (See 77 FR 63228, October 16, 2012). However, as noted in our June 24, 2014 action mentioned above, New Hampshire has revised their standards and they are now consistent with the federal NAAQS. In light of this, we propose to convert the conditional approval for this infrastructure requirement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (See 77 FR 63228, October 16, 2012) to full approval. As previously noted, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provisions or rules related to SSM or director's discretion in the context of section 110(a)(2)(A).

    B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    This section requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for establishing and operating ambient air quality monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to EPA upon request. Each year, states submit annual air monitoring network plans to EPA for review and approval. EPA's review of these annual monitoring plans includes our evaluation of whether the state: (i) Monitors air quality at appropriate locations throughout the state using EPA-approved Federal Reference Methods or Federal Equivalent Method monitors; (ii) submits data to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) in a timely manner; and, (iii) provides EPA Regional Offices with prior notification of any planned changes to monitoring sites or the network plan.

    NH-DES continues to operate a monitoring network, and EPA approved the state's most recent Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan for Pb, ozone, NO2, and SO2 on October 10, 2014. Furthermore, NH-DES populates AQS with air quality monitoring data in a timely manner, and provides EPA with prior notification when considering a change to its monitoring network or plan. EPA proposes that NH-DES has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for Enforcement of Control Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources

    States are required to include a program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary sources to meet NSR requirements under PSD and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA (sections 160-169B) addresses PSD, while part D of the CAA (sections 171-193) addresses NNSR requirements.

    The evaluation of each state's submission addressing the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) covers the following: (i) Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD program for major sources and major modifications; and, (iii) permitting program for minor sources and minor modifications. A discussion of GHG permitting and the “Tailoring Rule” 3 is included within our evaluation of the PSD provisions of New Hampshire's submittals.

    3 In EPA's April 28, 2011 proposed rulemaking for several states' infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, we stated that each state's PSD program must meet applicable requirements for evaluation of all regulated NSR pollutants in PSD permits (See 76 FR 23757 at 23760). This view was reiterated in EPA's August 2, 2012 proposed rulemaking for several infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (See 77 FR 45992 at 45998). In other words, if a state lacks provisions needed to adequately address Pb, NOX as a precursor to ozone, PM2.5 precursors, PM2.5 and PM10 condensables, PM2.5 increments, or the Federal GHG permitting thresholds, the provisions of section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring a suitable PSD permitting program must be considered not to be met irrespective of the NAAQS that triggered the requirement to submit an infrastructure SIP, including the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    i. Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP Measures

    NH-DES staffs and implements an enforcement program pursuant to RSA Chapter 125-C: Air Pollution Control, of the New Hampshire Statutes. Specifically, RSA Chapter 125-C:15, Enforcement, authorizes the Commissioner of the NH-DES or the authorized representative of the Commissioner, upon finding a violation of Chapter 125-C has occurred, to issue a notice of violation or an order of abatement, and to include within it a schedule for compliance. Additionally, RSA 125-C:15 I-b, II, III, and IV provide for penalties for violations of Chapter 125-C. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the enforcement of SIP measures requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    ii. Sub-Element 2: PSD Program for Major Sources and Major Modifications

    Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) applies to new major sources or modifications made to major sources for pollutants where the area in which the source is located is in attainment of, or unclassifiable with regard to, the relevant NAAQS. NH-DES's EPA-approved PSD rules, contained at Part Env-A 619, contain provisions that address the majority of the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements related to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. One aspect of New Hampshire's PSD rules relating to notification of neighboring states regarding the issuance of PSD permits, however, has not been fully addressed at this time. However, on April 24, 2015, EPA proposed to conditionally approve a recent update from New Hampshire to address this deficiency. (See 80 FR 22957). Once we have published a final conditional approval for that action, we intend to conditionally approve this aspect of sub-element 2 of the state's infrastructure SIPs as well. Accordingly, we propose to approve the majority of New Hampshire's submittals for this sub-element pertaining to section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, but to conditionally approve the aspect pertaining to provision of notice to neighboring states.

    EPA's “Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline” (Phase 2 Rule) was published on November 29, 2005 (See 70 FR 71612). Among other requirements, the Phase 2 Rule obligated states to revise their PSD programs to explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to ozone (70 FR 71612 at 71679, 71699-71700, November 29, 2005). This requirement was codified in 40 CFR 51.166, and requires that states submit SIP revisions incorporating the requirements of the rule, including these specific NOX as a precursor to ozone provisions, by June 15, 2007 (See 70 FR 71612 at 71683, November 29, 2005).

    On November 15, 2012, New Hampshire submitted revisions to its PSD program incorporating the necessary changes regarding NOX as a precursor to ozone, consistent with the requirements of the Phase 2 Rule. EPA proposed approval of New Hampshire's SIP revisions with respect to the NSR portion of the Phase 2 Rule on January 21, 2015, (See 80 FR 2860),4 and we will take final action on those revisions prior to, or in conjunction with, finalizing our action on these infrastructure SIP requirements. Therefore, we are proposing to find that New Hampshire has met this set of requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS regarding the explicit identification of NOX as a precursor to ozone, consistent with our Phase 2 Rule.

    4 Note that EPA subsequently proposed a conditional approval of New Hampshire's PSD program due to a lack of a provision requiring notification to neighboring states of the issuance of PSD permits. See 80 FR 22957; April 24, 2015.

    On May 16, 2008 (See 73 FR 28321), EPA issued the Final Rule on the “Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)” (2008 NSR Rule). The 2008 NSR Rule finalized several new requirements for SIPs to address sources that emit direct PM2.5 and other pollutants that contribute to secondary PM2.5 formation. One of these requirements is for NSR permits to address pollutants responsible for the secondary formation of PM2.5, otherwise known as precursors. In the 2008 rule, EPA identified precursors to PM2.5 for the PSD program to be sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOX, unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that NOX emissions in an area are not a significant contributor to that area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations. The 2008 NSR Rule also specifies that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are not considered to be precursors to PM2.5 in the PSD program, unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that emissions of VOCs in an area are significant contributors to that area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations.

    The explicit references to SO2, NOX, and VOCs as they pertain to secondary PM2.5 formation are codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). As part of identifying pollutants that are precursors to PM2.5, the 2008 NSR Rule also required states to revise the definition of “significant” as it relates to a net emissions increase or the potential of a source to emit pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i) and 52.21(b)(23)(i) define “significant” for PM2.5 to mean the following emissions rates: 10 tons per year (tpy) of direct PM2.5; 40 tpy of SO2; and 40 tpy of NOX (unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that NOX emissions in an area are not a significant contributor to that area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The deadline for states to submit SIP revisions to their PSD programs incorporating these changes was May 16, 2011 (See 73 FR 28321 at 28341, May 16, 2008).5

    5 EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), held that EPA should have issued the 2008 NSR Rule in accordance with the CAA's requirements for PM10 nonattainment areas (Title I, Part D, subpart 4), and not the general requirements for nonattainment areas under subpart 1 (Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 08-1250). As the subpart 4 provisions apply only to nonattainment areas, the EPA does not consider the portions of the 2008 rule that address requirements for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected by the court's opinion. Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008 NSR rule in order to comply with the court's decision. Accordingly, the EPA's approval of New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP as to elements C, D(i)(II), or J with respect to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008 implementation rule does not conflict with the court's opinion. The Court's decision with respect to the nonattainment NSR requirements promulgated by the 2008 implementation rule also does not affect EPA's action on the present infrastructure action. EPA interprets the CAA to exclude nonattainment area requirements, including requirements associated with a nonattainment NSR program, from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years after adoption or revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are typically referred to as nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, which would be due by the dates statutorily prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 under part D, extending as far as 10 years following designations for some elements.

    The 2008 NSR Rule did not require states to immediately account for gases that could condense to form particulate matter, known as condensables, in PM2.5 and PM10 emission limits in NSR permits. Instead, EPA determined that states had to account for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables for applicability determinations and in establishing emissions limitations for PM2.5 and PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or after January 1, 2011. 73 FR 28321 at 28334. This requirement is codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) and 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). Revisions to states' PSD programs incorporating the inclusion of condensables were required be submitted to EPA by May 16, 2011 (See 73 FR 28321 at 28341).

    On November 15, 2012, New Hampshire submitted revisions to its PSD program incorporating the necessary changes obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule, including provisions that explicitly identify precursors to PM2.5 and account for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables for applicability determinations and in establishing emissions limitations for PM2.5 and PM10 in PSD permits. EPA's proposed approval of New Hampshire's SIP revision with respect to the 2008 NSR Rule was published on January 21, 2015 (See 80 FR 2860),6 and we will take final action on these revisions prior to, or in conjunction with, finalizing our action on these infrastructure SIP revisions from New Hampshire.

    6 Note that EPA subsequently proposed a conditional approval of New Hampshire's PSD program due to a lack of a provision requiring notification to neighboring states of the issuance of PSD permits. See 80 FR 22957; April 24, 2015.

    Therefore, we are proposing that New Hampshire has met this set of requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS regarding the requirements obligated by the 2008 NSR Rule. Additionally, we are also proposing to convert our prior conditional approval for this infrastructure requirement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 63228, October 16, 2012) to full approval.

    On October 20, 2010, EPA issued the final rule on the “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)” (2010 NSR Rule). 75 FR 64864. This rule established several components for making PSD permitting determinations for PM2.5, including a system of “increments” which is the mechanism used to estimate significant deterioration of ambient air quality for a pollutant. These increments are codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(c).

    The 2010 NSR Rule also established a new “major source baseline date” for PM2.5 as October 20, 2010, and a new trigger date for PM2.5 as October 20, 2011. These revisions are codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c), and 52.21(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c). Lastly, the 2010 NSR Rule revised the definition of “baseline area” to include a level of significance of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter, annual average, for PM2.5. This change is codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i) and 52.21(b)(15)(i).

    On November 15, 2012, New Hampshire submitted revisions to its PSD program incorporating the necessary changes obligated by the 2010 NSR Rule, including the increments established by the 2010 NSR Rule for incorporation into the SIP, as well as the revised major source baseline date, trigger date, and baseline area level of significance for PM2.5. EPA's proposed approval of New Hampshire's SIP revision with respect to the 2010 NSR Rule was published on January 21, 2015, (See 80 FR 2860),7 and we will take final action on that submittal prior to, or in conjunction with, finalizing our action on these infrastructure SIP submittals from New Hampshire. Therefore, we are proposing that New Hampshire has met this set of requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS regarding the requirements obligated by the 2010 NSR Rule. Additionally, we are also proposing to convert our prior conditional approval for this infrastructure requirement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (See 77 FR 63228) to full approval.

    7 Note that EPA subsequently proposed a conditional approval of New Hampshire's PSD program due to a lack of a provision requiring notification to neighboring states of the issuance of PSD permits. See 80 FR 22957; April 24, 2015.

    With respect to greenhouse gas permitting, EPA's “Tailoring Rule,” and element C,8 EPA interprets the Clean Air Act to require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. New Hampshire has shown that it currently has a PSD program in place that covers all regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs).

    8 In this rulemaking, “element C” refers to section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA. References to other “elements” have similar meanings, e.g., element D(i)(II) refers to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA.

    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). In order to act consistently with its understanding of the Court's decision, the EPA is not continuing to apply EPA regulations that would require that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the requirement that a state's SIP-approved PSD program require that sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a need to revise federal PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court's decision. At this juncture, EPA is not expecting states to have revised their PSD programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions and is only evaluating such submissions to assure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.

    At present, EPA has determined that New Hampshire's SIP is sufficient to satisfy element C with respect to GHGs because the PSD permitting program previously approved by EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. Although the approved New Hampshire PSD permitting program may currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy element C. The SIP contains the necessary PSD requirements at this time, and the application of those requirements is not impeded by the presence of other previously-approved provisions regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that EPA does not consider necessary at this time in light of the Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision does not affect EPA's proposed approval of New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP as to the requirements of element C.

    For the purposes of the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIPs, EPA reiterates that NSR Reform regulations are not in the scope of these actions. Therefore, we are not taking action on existing NSR Reform regulations for New Hampshire.

    In summary, we are proposing to approve the majority of New Hampshire's submittals for this sub-element pertaining to section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NOX, and 2010 S02 NAAQS, but to conditionally approve the aspect pertaining to provision of notice to neighboring states. In addition, EPA previously issued a conditional approval to New Hampshire regarding the state's infrastructure submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS because the state had not met the requirements of EPA's 2008 and 2010 NSR rules. See 77 FR 63228. Given that we have now proposed approval of New Hampshire's PSD program SIP revision with respect to the 2008 and 2010 NSR rules, we are also proposing to convert the prior conditional approval for this infrastructure requirement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 63228) from conditional approval to approval. Note, however, that our April 24, 2015 notice of proposed rulemaking on New Hampshire's November 15, 2012 submittal proposes a conditional approval of the aspect of the state's permitting program pertaining to providing notification to neighboring states regarding the issuance of PSD permits. Accordingly, we are proposing to conditionally approve the aspect of New Hampshire's 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submittals regarding provision of notification to neighboring states of the issuance of PSD permits.

    iii. Sub-Element 3: Preconstruction Permitting for Minor Sources and Minor Modifications

    To address the pre-construction regulation of the modification and construction of minor stationary sources and minor modifications of major stationary sources, an infrastructure SIP submission should identify the existing EPA-approved SIP provisions and/or include new provisions that govern the minor source pre-construction program that regulates emissions of the relevant NAAQS pollutants. EPA approved New Hampshire's minor NSR program on September 22, 1980 (45 FR 62814), and approved updates to the program on August 14, 1992. (See 57 FR 36606). Since this date, New Hampshire and EPA have relied on the existing minor NSR program to ensure that new and modified sources not captured by the major NSR permitting programs do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    We are proposing to find that New Hampshire has met this set of requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate Transport

    This section contains a comprehensive set of air quality management elements pertaining to the transport of air pollution that states must address. It covers the following 5 topics, categorized as sub-elements: Sub-element 1, Contribute to nonattainment, and interference with maintenance of a NAAQS; Sub-element 2, PSD; Sub-element 3, Visibility protection; Sub-element 4, Interstate pollution abatement; and Sub-element 5, International pollution abatement. Sub-elements 1 through 3 above are found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Act, and these items are further categorized into the 4 prongs discussed below, 2 of which are found within sub-element 1. Sub-elements 4 and 5 are found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act and include provisions insuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.

    i. Sub-Element 1: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Contribute to Nonattainment (Prong 1) and Interfere With Maintenance of the NAAQS (Prong 2)

    With respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS, the 2011 Memo notes that the physical properties of Pb prevent it from experiencing the same travel or formation phenomena as PM2.5 or ozone. Specifically, there is a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations as the distance from a Pb source increases. Accordingly, although it may be possible for a source in a state to emit Pb at a location and in such quantities that contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interference with maintenance by, any other state, EPA anticipates that this would be a rare situation (e.g., sources emitting large quantities of Pb in close proximity to state boundaries). The 2011 Memo suggests that the applicable interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to lead can be met through a state's assessment as to whether or not emissions from Pb sources located in close proximity to its borders have emissions that impact a neighboring state such that they contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in that state.

    New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 Pb NAAQS notes that there are no sources of Pb emissions located in close proximity to any of the state's borders with neighboring states. Additionally, New Hampshire's submittal and the emissions data the state collects from its sources indicate that there is no single source of Pb, or group of sources, anywhere within the state that emits enough Pb to cause ambient concentrations to approach the Pb NAAQS. Our review of data within our National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database confirms this, and therefore we propose that New Hampshire has met this set of requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    In today's rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove New Hampshire's compliance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, since New Hampshire's infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS do not include a submittal with respect to transport for sub-element 1, prongs 1 and 2.

    ii. Sub-Element 2: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—PSD (Prong 3)

    One aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state.

    EPA notes that New Hampshire has satisfied the majority of the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, but as detailed in the section of this notice addressing section 110(a)(2)(C), we are conditionally approving one element of the state's PSD program. We note that the proposed actions in that section related to PSD are consistent with the proposed actions related to PSD for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and they are reiterated below.

    New Hampshire has submitted revisions to its PSD regulations that are consistent with the EPA's requirements contained in the Phase 2 Rule, the 2008 NSR Rule, and the 2010 NSR Rule. EPA proposed approval of a number of these SIP revisions on January 21, 2015, (see 80 FR 2860),9 and we will take final action on these revisions prior to, or in conjunction with, finalizing our action on these infrastructure requirements. Additionally, we proposed to conditionally approve an aspect of this program relating to providing notification to neighboring states of the issuance of PSD permits within a notice of proposed rulemaking published on April 24, 2015. (See 80 FR 22957). Therefore, in this rulemaking, we are proposing to approve all but one of the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for this sub-element for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including the applicable PSD requirements associated with the permitting of GHG emitting sources, and are proposing to conditionally approve the remaining aspect of the state's program relating to notification to neighboring states mentioned above. Furthermore, we are also proposing to convert our prior conditional approval for this infrastructure requirement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (See 77 FR 63228, October 16, 2012) to an approval, except for the aspect relating to notification to neighboring states for which we are proposing a conditional approval.

    9 Note that EPA subsequently proposed a conditional approval of New Hampshire's PSD program due to a lack of a provision requiring notification to neighboring states of the issuance of PSD permits. See 80 FR 22957; April 24, 2015.

    States also have an obligation to ensure that sources located in nonattainment areas do not interfere with a neighboring state's PSD program. One way that this requirement can be satisfied is through an NNSR program consistent with the CAA that addresses any pollutants for which there is a designated nonattainment area within the state.

    EPA approved New Hampshire's NNSR regulations on July 27, 2001 (66 FR 39104). These regulations contain provisions for how the state must treat and control sources in nonattainment areas, consistent with 40 CFR 51.165, or appendix S to 40 CFR part 51. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the requirements with respect to the prohibition of interference with a neighboring state's PSD program for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

    iii. Sub-Element 3: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Visibility Protection (Prong 4)

    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2009 Memo, the 2011 Memo, and 2013 Memo state that these requirements can be satisfied by an approved SIP addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment, if required, or an approved SIP addressing regional haze.

    New Hampshire's Regional Haze SIP was approved by EPA on August 22, 2012 (See 77 FR 50602). Accordingly, EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the visibility protection requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    iv. Sub-Element 4: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—Interstate Pollution Abatement

    One aspect of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each SIP to contain adequate provisions requiring compliance with the applicable requirements of section 126 relating to interstate pollution abatement.

    Section 126(a) requires new or modified sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source. The statute does not specify the method by which the source should provide the notification. States with SIP-approved PSD programs must have a provision requiring such notification by new or modified sources. A lack of such a requirement in state rules would be grounds for disapproval of this element.

    As mentioned elsewhere in this notice, in a separate action we are proposing to conditionally approve one element of New Hampshire's PSD program pertaining to notification to neighboring states of the issuance of PSD permits. Therefore, we propose to also conditionally approve New Hampshire's compliance with the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 126(a) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. New Hampshire has no obligations under any other provision of section 126.10

    10 By letter dated August 22, 2013, EPA received a petition from the town of Eliot, Maine, requesting that, pursuant to Section 126 of the CAA, a coal fired electric utility in New Hampshire be required to lower its SO2 emissions. As of this time, EPA is currently evaluating the merits of this petition.

    v. Sub-Element 5: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—International Pollution Abatement

    One portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each SIP to contain adequate provisions requiring compliance with the applicable requirements of section 115 relating to international pollution abatement. New Hampshire does not have any pending obligations under section 115 for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, or 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is proposing that New Hampshire has met the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to section 115 of the CAA (international pollution abatement) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate Resources

    This section requires each state to provide for adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP, and related issues. Additionally, Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires each state to comply with the requirements with respect to state boards under section 128. Finally, section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) requires that, where a state relies upon local or regional governments or agencies for the implementation of its SIP provisions, the state retain responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of SIP obligations with respect to relevant NAAQS. This sub-element, however, is inapplicable to this action, because New Hampshire does not rely upon local or regional governments or agencies for the implementation of its SIP provisions.

    Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, Funding, and Legal Authority Under State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and Related issues

    New Hampshire, through its infrastructure SIP submittals, has documented that its air agency has the requisite authority and resources to carry out its SIP obligations. New Hampshire RSA 125-C:6, Powers and Duties of the Commissioner, authorizes the Commissioner of the NH-DES to enforce the state's air laws, establish a permit program, accept and administer grants, and exercise incidental powers necessary to carry out the law. Additionally, RSA-125-C:12, Administrative Requirements, authorizes the Commissioner to collect fees to recover the costs of reviewing and acting upon permit applications and enforcing the terms of permits issued. The New Hampshire SIP, as originally submitted on January 27, 1972, and subsequently amended, provides additional descriptions of the organizations, staffing, funding and physical resources necessary to carry out the plan. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    New Hampshire has made several amendments to its Statutory Authority since its statutes were submitted to EPA for approval in 1972. In its December 31, 2012 infrastructure SIP submittal for ozone, New Hampshire submitted an updated amendment to the statutory authority within Title I: The State and its Government: Chapter 21-O:11 Department of Environmental Services, Air Resources Council. Additionally, within its September 13, 2013 infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, New Hampshire included updated amendments to its statutory authority within Title X: Public Health, Chapter 125: Air Pollution Control, for incorporation into the SIP, although it later withdrew section 125-C:15, Enforcement, within a May 21, 2015 letter to EPA. The amendments we are proposing to approve are included in the following table:

    Table 1—New Hampshire Statutes Submitted for Incorporation Into the SIP Title I—The State and its Government Chapter 21-O: Department of Environmental Services Section 21-O:11 Air Resources Council Effective September 19, 2010 Title X: Public Health Chapter 125-C: Air Pollution Control Section 125-C:1 Declaration of Policy and Purpose Effective July 1, 1979. Section 125-C:2 Definitions Effective July 21, 2010. Section 125-C:4 Rulemaking Authority; Subpoena Power Effective June 21, 2010. Section 125-C:6 Powers and Duties of the Commissioner Effective June 21, 2010. Section 125-C:8 Administration of Chapter; Delegation of Duties Effective July 1, 1996. Section 125-C:9 Authority of the Commissioner in Cases of Emergency Effective July 1, 1996. Section 125-C:10 Devices Contributing to Air Pollution Effective August 9, 1996. Section 125-C:10-a Municipal Waste Combustion Units Effective January 1, 2006. Section 125-C:11 Permit Required Effective June 21, 2010. Section 125-C:12 Administrative Requirements. Effective June 18, 2012. Section 125-C:13 Criteria for Denial; Suspension or Revocation; Modification Effective June 21, 2010. Section 125-C:14 Rehearings and Appeals Effective July 1, 1996. Section 125-C:18 Existing Remedies Unimpaired Effective July 1, 1979. Section 125-C:19 Protection of Powers Effective July 1, 1996. Section 125-C:21 Severability Effective August 16, 1981. Title X: Public Health Chapter 125-O: Multiple Pollutant Reduction Program Section 125-O:1 Findings and Purpose Effective July 1, 2002. Section 125-O:3 Integrated Power Plant Strategy Effective January 1, 2013.

    EPA proposes to approve these statutes into the SIP, and also proposes that upon final approval of these statutes into the SIP, New Hampshire will have demonstrated that it has met the infrastructure SIP requirements for this section of 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    Sub-Element 2: State Board Requirements Under Section 128 of the CAA

    Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each SIP to contain provisions that comply with the state board requirements of section 128 of the CAA. That provision contains two explicit requirements: (i) That any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this chapter shall have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under this chapter, and (ii) that any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed.

    Of relevance within New Hampshire, RSA 21-O:11, Air Resources Council, establishes the New Hampshire Air Resources Council, a state board that has the authority to hear enforcement and permit appeals. The Council consists of 11 members, 6 of whom must represent the public interest. Those representing the public interest “may not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders, and may not serve as attorney for, act as consultant for, serve as officer or director of, or hold any other official or contractual relationship with any person subject to permits or enforcement orders.” New Hampshire RSA 21-0:11 further provides that “[a]ll potential conflicts of interest shall be adequately disclosed.”

    EPA's review of New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submissions has raised one issue that warrants further evaluation. Section 128(a)(2) requires that a state's SIP provide for adequate disclosure of conflicts of interest by “members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers.” The use of the disjunctive “or” between “board or body” and “head of an executive agency” results in ambiguity concerning whether merely one or both of these parties must disclose conflicts of interest, and if it is only one of these entities, which one? This ambiguity is relevant in the case of the submission from New Hampshire because under state law included within such submission, only the members of the Air Resources Council are required to disclose conflicts of interest, not the head of the executive agency. In order to determine whether this is sufficient for purposes of meeting the requirements of section 128(a)(2), we have evaluated the statutory language more closely.

    First, the term “or” can be interpreted as “one or the other, but not necessarily both,” or it can be interpreted as “and.” Although the word “or” could be read to mean “and” in some circumstances, we believe that, in this instance, it is appropriate to give the word “or” its most straightforward meaning. In isolation, it could seem unreasonable to give “or” the first meaning, as that would allow a state to require adequate disclosure of conflict of interest by either the members of the state board or the head of an agency, without regard to whether that disclosure requirement applies to the entity that makes the final permit or enforcement order decision. To read section 128(a)(2) to require disclosure by the entity that is not the actual final decisionmaker appears logically inconsistent and contrary to the overall purposes of section 128. EPA believes that the purpose of section 128(a)(2) is to assure that conflicts of interest are disclosed by the entity making the permit or enforcement order decision, and requiring this of the ultimate decisionmaker rather than other parties that may be involved in the process.

    As discussed above, under New Hampshire law pertaining to the Air Resources Council, “[a]ll potential conflicts of interest shall be adequately disclosed.” Under the structure of the State's program, the Commissioner makes certain decisions such as the issuance of air permits and enforcement orders. However, under state law these permits and enforcement orders issued by the Commissioner can be appealed to the Air Resources Council in an adjudicative proceeding. RSA 21-O:11, IV; RSA 21-O:14, I. Given this division of authority in the State, we believe that the Air Resources Council is functionally the final decisionmaker with respect to permits and enforcement orders in New Hampshire, and thus the disclosure of conflicts of interest by members of the Council is necessary to meet the requirements of section 128(a)(2). Naturally, a state may elect to require disclosure of conflicts of interest by other state officials and employees as well, and this would be fully consistent with the explicit reservation of authority for states to impose more stringent requirements than those imposed by section 128.

    For the foregoing reasons, the EPA believes that New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submittals contain provisions that meet the requirements of section 128(a)(1) and section 128(a). Accordingly, we are proposing approval of the infrastructure SIP submissions as meeting the requirements of section 128.

    New Hampshire submitted RSA 21-O:11, Air Resources Council, for incorporation into the SIP on December 31, 2012, and we are proposing to approve it into the New Hampshire SIP. Upon approval of RSA 21-O:11 into the SIP, EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for this section of 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. In addition, EPA previously issued a conditional approval to New Hampshire for this infrastructure requirement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 77 FR 63228. This conditional approval occurred prior to New Hampshire's SIP submittal of RSA 21-0:11 to EPA, which occurred on December 31, 2012. Given that New Hampshire has now addressed this issue, we are also proposing to convert the prior conditional approval for this infrastructure requirement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 63228) to full approval.

    F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary Source Monitoring System

    States must establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary sources and submit periodic emissions reports. Each plan shall also require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources. The state plan shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and correlation of such reports by each state agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.

    New Hampshire RSA 125-C:6, Powers and Duties of the Commissioner, authorizes the Commissioner of NH-DES to require the installation, maintenance, and use of emissions monitoring devices and to require periodic reporting to the Commissioner of the nature and extent of the emissions. This authority also enables the Commissioner to correlate this information to any applicable emissions standard and to make such information available to the public. NH-DES implements Chapter Env-A 800, Testing and Monitoring Procedures, and Chapter Env-A 900, Owner or Operator Recordkeeping and Reporting Obligations, as the primary means of fulfilling these obligations. New Hampshire's Chapters Env-A 800 and 900 have been approved into the SIP (See 77 FR 66388; November 5, 2012). Additionally, under RSA 125-C:6, VII, and Env-A 103.04, emissions data are not considered confidential information. EPA recognizes that New Hampshire routinely collects information on air emissions from its industrial sources and makes this information available to the public. EPA, therefore, proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency Powers

    This section requires that a plan provide for authority that is analogous to what is provided in section 303 of the CAA, and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. Section 303 of the CAA provides authority to the EPA Administrator to seek a court order to restrain any source from causing or contributing to emissions that present an “imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment.” Section 303 further authorizes the Administrator to issue “such orders as may be necessary to protect public health or welfare or the environment” in the event that “it is not practicable to assure prompt protection . . . by commencement of such civil action.”

    We propose to find that New Hampshire's submittals and certain state statutes provide for authority comparable to that in section 303. New Hampshire's submittals specify that RSA 125-C:9, Authority of the Commissioner in Cases of Emergency, authorizes the Commissioner of NH-DES, with the consent of the Governor and Air Resources Council, to issue an order requiring actions to be taken as the Commissioner deems necessary to address an air pollution emergency. Such orders are effective immediately upon issuance. We note also that RSA 125-C:15, I, provides that, “[u]pon a finding by the commissioner that there is an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment, the commissioner shall issue an order of abatement requiring immediate compliance and said order shall be final and enforceable upon issuance, but may be appealed to the council within 30 days of its issuance, and the council may, after hearing, uphold, modify, or abrogate said order.” With regard to the authority to bring suit, RSA 125-C:15, II, further provides that violation of such an order “shall be subject to enforcement by injunction, including mandatory injunction, issued by the superior court upon application of the attorney general.”

    Furthermore, New Hampshire has broad statutory authority (see RSA 125-C:9, Authority of the Commissioner in Cases of Emergency) to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health; however, New Hampshire does not have regulations that specifically address all the 40 CFR part 51 subpart H requirements. New Hampshire does, however, as a matter of practice, post on the internet daily forecasted ozone levels through the EPA AIRNOW and EPA ENVIROFLASH systems. Information regarding these two systems is available on EPA's Web site at www.airnow.gov. Notices are sent out to ENVIROFLASH participants when levels are forecast to exceed the current 8-hour ozone standard. In addition, when levels are expected to exceed the ozone standard in New Hampshire, the media are alerted via a press release, and the National Weather Service (NWS) is alerted to issue an Air Quality Advisory through the normal NWS weather alert system. These actions are similar to the notification and communication requirements of 40 CFR 51.152.

    Section 110(a)(2)(G) also requires that, for any NAAQS, except lead, New Hampshire have an approved contingency plan for any Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) within the state that is classified as Priority I, IA, or II. A contingency plan is not required if the entire state is classified as Priority III for a particular pollutant. See 40 CFR part 51 subpart H. Classifications for all pollutants for AQCRs in New Hampshire can be found at 40 CFR 52.1521. The entire state of New Hampshire is classified as Priority III for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide.

    With regard to ozone, however, we note that New Hampshire's December 31, 2012 infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS contends that it is a Priority I region for ozone, although as mentioned above each AQCR in the state is listed as Priority III for ozone within 40 CFR 52.1521. New Hampshire's submittal cites air quality monitoring data to substantiate its view.

    EPA's last update to the priority classifications for New Hampshire occurred in 1972. See 37 FR 10879, May 31, 1972. As noted above, New Hampshire's submittal, and a supplement to that submittal made on May 21, 2015, cite more recent ozone air quality data. This information indicates that the proper ozone classification for the New Hampshire portion of the Merrimack Valley—Southern New Hampshire Interstate AQCR would be Priority I. Therefore, we are proposing to revise New Hampshire's priority classification for the Merrimack Valley—Southern New Hampshire Interstate AQCR from Priority III to Priority I for ozone. This reclassification triggers the contingency plan obligation requirement of 40 CFR 51.151, but New Hampshire's submittal requests, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.152(d)(1), an exemption from the contingency plan obligation because the state is designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 ozone standard. In accordance with 40 CFR 51.152(d), we are proposing to grant New Hampshire's request for an exemption from the contingency obligation in light of the state being designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.330. Additionally, as documented within the state's submittal, we note that recent air monitoring data have not come close to the significant harm level for ozone of 0.6 parts per million (ppm) on a 2-hour average, and the state has only exceeded 0.1 ppm on three occasions in the 2012-2014 timeframe. See 40 CFR 51.151.

    Regarding SO2, the Androscoggin Valley Interstate AQCR is classified as Priority IA, the Merrimack Valley-Southern New Hampshire Interstate AQCR is classified as Priority I, and the Central New Hampshire Interstate AQCR is classified as Priority III. However, these classifications were made in 1972 when SO2 emissions in New Hampshire were significantly higher than they are today. As emission levels change, states are encouraged to periodically evaluate the priority classifications and propose changes to the classifications based on the three most recent years of air quality data. See 40 CFR 51.153.

    In its September 13, 2013 infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, New Hampshire provided air quality data for SO2 from 2005-2012. New Hampshire supplemented this with more recent data in a letter dated May 21, 2015. In this letter, New Hampshire requested the entire state be re-classified as Priority III for SO2 based on the air quality data from 2012-2014. New Hampshire's SO2 monitoring program is focused on the more populous and more industrial southern portion of the state represented by the Merrimack Valley—Southern New Hampshire area, and there are currently no SO2 monitors in the more northerly Central New Hampshire Intrastate and Androscoggin Valley Interstate AQCRs. EPA has reviewed the SO2 monitoring data, which the state has certified, and agrees that the SO2 levels are significantly below the threshold of a Priority I, IA, or II level.

    The Public Service Company of New Hampshire's (PSNH's) Merrimack Station, a large coal-fired electric utility located in Bow, has historically been the largest SO2 emitter in the Merrimack Valley—Southern New Hampshire AQCR, and also in the state, by a wide margin. By 2012, however, the facility had installed and begun operating an air pollution control device for this pollutant. In 2011, the last year that Merrimack Station's SO2 emissions were essentially uncontrolled, the facility emitted 22,393 tons of SO2. For context, the next largest SO2 emitter that year in the entire state was PSNH's Schiller Station, which emitted 1,708 tons of SO2. The requirement for operation of SO2 controls at Merrimack Station are contained within Permit TP-0008. This permit was submitted to EPA and we have approved it into the SIP. See 77 FR 50602, August 22, 2012. Since installation of the control equipment, Merrimack Station's SO2 emissions have fallen considerably, registering 1,004 tons in 2012, and 1,400 tons in 2013, and 1,044 tons in 2014. The ambient SO2 air monitoring data submitted by NH-DES within their May 21, 2015 correspondence for the years 2012-2014 have also declined considerably when compared to data recorded for prior time periods.

    As mentioned above, New Hampshire's SO2 monitoring network is focused on the more populous and more industrial southern part of the state represented by the Merrimack Valley—Southern New Hampshire AQCR. Based on our review of the monitoring data for this area, we propose to reclassify the New Hampshire portion of the Merrimack Valley—Southern New Hampshire Interstate AQCR to Priority III for SO2. The more northerly AQCRs are much less likely to experience high SO2 levels due to their lower population and lesser industrial base, and based on the low amounts of SO2 emitted by sources in these areas. For example, the most recent 3 year cycle emissions inventory data contained within EPA's National Emissions Inventory database is for 2011, and for New Hampshire the data indicate that approximately 95% of the state's SO2 emissions occur in the counties within the Merrimack Valley—Southern New Hampshire AQCR. Given that the monitoring data in the New Hampshire portion of the Merrimack Valley—Southern New Hampshire AQCR indicate that the appropriate classification for this region is Priority III, and given that the preponderance of SO2 emissions occur in this region, we also propose to grant New Hampshire's request that the state's portion of the Androscoggin Valley Interstate AQCR also be reclassified to Priority III for SO2. Accordingly, a contingency plan for SO2 is not required. See 40 CFR 51.152(c).

    EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for this portion of section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP Revisions

    This section requires states to have the authority to revise their SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, or an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate.

    New Hampshire RSA 125-C:6, Powers and Duties of the Commissioner, provides that the Commissioner of NH-DES may develop a comprehensive program and provide services for the study, prevention, and abatement of air pollution. Additionally, Chapter Env-A 200, Procedural Rules, which was approved into the New Hampshire SIP on October 28, 2002 (see 67 FR 65710) provides for public hearings for SIP revision requests prior to their submittal to EPA. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part D

    The CAA requires that each plan or plan revision for an area designated as a nonattainment area meet the applicable requirements of part D of the CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment areas. EPA has determined that section 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA takes action on part D attainment plans through separate processes.

    J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation with Government Officials; Public Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection

    The evaluation of the submissions from New Hampshire with respect to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) are described below.

    i. Sub-Element 1: Consultation With Government Officials

    States must provide a process for consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements.

    New Hampshire RSA 125-C:6 Powers and Duties of the Commissioner, authorizes the Commissioner of NH-DES to advise, consult, and cooperate with the cities, towns, and other agencies of the state and federal government, interstate agencies, and other groups or agencies in matters relating to air quality. Additionally, RSA 125-C:6 enables the Commissioner to coordinate and regulate the air pollution control programs of political subdivisions to plan and implement programs for the control and abatement of air pollution. Furthermore, New Hampshire regulations at Part Env-A 621 direct NH DES to notify town officials, regional planning agencies, and FLMs, among others, of the receipt of certain permit applications and the NH DES' preliminary determination to issue, amend, or deny such permits. Therefore, EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    ii. Sub-Element 2: Public Notification

    Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires states to notify the public if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and must enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances.

    As part of the fulfillment of RSA 125-C:6, Powers and Duties of the Commissioner, New Hampshire issues press releases and posts warnings on its Web site advising people what they can do to help prevent NAAQS exceedances and avoid adverse health effects on poor air quality days. New Hampshire is also an active partner in EPA's AIRNOW and Enviroflash air quality alert programs. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    iii. Sub-Element 3: PSD

    States must meet applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) related to PSD. New Hampshire's PSD program in the context of infrastructure SIPs has already been discussed in the paragraphs addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and EPA notes that the proposed actions for those sections are consistent with the proposed actions for this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J). Our proposed actions are reiterated below.

    New Hampshire's PSD regulations are consistent with the EPA's requirements regarding this sub-element with the exception of the notification to neighboring states provision. Therefore, we are proposing that New Hampshire has met the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS as they relate to the requirements obligated by EPA's PSD regulations, with the exception of the notification to neighboring states provision, for which we are proposing a conditional approval. In addition, EPA previously issued a conditional approval to New Hampshire for this infrastructure requirement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 77 FR 63228, October 16, 2012. This conditional approval occurred prior to New Hampshire's submittal of its November 15, 2012 PSD program SIP revision. Given that we have now proposed approval of New Hampshire's SIP revision with respect to the 2008 and 2010 NSR rules, we are also proposing to convert the prior conditional approval for this infrastructure requirement for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to approval. However, in this action we are also proposing to conditionally approve this sub-element for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the notification to neighboring states issue previously mentioned.

    iv. Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection

    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection, states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, we find that there is no new visibility obligation “triggered” under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective. In other words, the visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality Modeling/Data

    To satisfy element K, the state air agency must demonstrate that it has the authority to perform air quality modeling to predict effects on air quality of emissions of any NAAQS pollutant and submission of such data to EPA upon request.

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the Commissioner of NH-DES in RSA 125-C:6, New Hampshire reviews the potential impact of major sources consistent with 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, “Guidelines on Air Quality Models.” The modeling data are sent to EPA along with the draft major permit. For non-major sources, Part Env-A 606, Air Pollution Dispersion Modeling Impact Analysis Requirements, specifies the air pollution dispersion modeling impact analysis requirements that apply to owners and operators of certain sources and devices in order to demonstrate compliance with the New Hampshire State Implementation Plan, RSA 125-C, RSA 125-I, and any rules adopted thereunder. The state also collaborates with the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, and EPA in order to perform large scale urban airshed modeling. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting Fees

    This section requires SIPs to mandate that each major stationary source pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving, implementing, and enforcing a permit.

    New Hampshire implements and operates the Title V permit program, which EPA approved on September 24, 2001. See 66 FR 48806. Chapter Env-A 700, Permit Fee System, establishes a fee system requiring the payment of fees to cover the costs of: Reviewing and acting upon applications for the issuance of, amendment to, modification to, or renewal of a temporary permit, state permit to operate, or Title V operating permit; implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of these permits; and developing, implementing, and administering the Title V operating permit program. In addition, Part Env-A 705 establishes the emission-based fee program for Title V and non-Title V sources. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities

    Pursuant to element M, states must consult with, and allow participation from, local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.

    As previously mentioned, Chapter Env-A 200, Part Env-A 204 provides a public participation process for all stakeholders that includes a minimum of a 30-day comment period and an opportunity for public hearing for all SIP-related actions. Additionally, RSA 125-C:6, Powers and Duties of the Commissioner, provides that the Commissioner shall consult with the cities, towns, other agencies of the state and federal government, interstate agencies, and other affected agencies or groups in matters relating to air quality. EPA proposes that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve SIP submissions from New Hampshire certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to meet the required infrastructure elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, with the exception of certain aspects relating to PSD which we are proposing to conditionally approve. EPA's proposed actions regarding these infrastructure SIP requirements are contained in Table 2 below.

    Table 2—Proposed Action on NH Infrastructure SIP Submittals for Various NAAQS Element 2008 Pb 2008 Ozone 2010 NO2 2010 SO2 (A): Emission limits and other control measures A A A A (B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system A A A A (C)(i): Enforcement of SIP measures A A A A (C)(ii): PSD program for major sources and major modifications A* A* A* A* (C)(iii): Permitting program for minor sources and minor modifications A A A A (D)(i)(I): Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance of NAAQS (prongs 1 and 2) A NS NS NS (D)(i)(II): PSD (prong 3) A* A* A* A* (D)(i)(II): Visibility Protection (prong 4) A A A A (D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement A* A* A* A* (D)(ii): International Pollution Abatement A A A A (E)(i): Adequate resources A A A A (E)(ii): State boards A A A A (E)(iii): Necessary assurances with respect to local agencies NA NA NA NA (F): Stationary source monitoring system A A A A (G): Emergency power A A A A (H): Future SIP revisions A A A A (I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D + + + + (J)(i): Consultation with government officials A A A A (J)(ii): Public notification A A A A (J)(iii): PSD A* A* A* A* (J)(iv): Visibility protection + + + + (K): Air quality modeling and data A A A A (L): Permitting fees A A A A (M): Consultation and participation by affected local entities A A A A

    In the above table, the key is as follows:

    A Approve A* Approve, but conditionally approve aspect of PSD program relating to notification to neighboring states + Not germane to infrastructure SIPs NS No Submittal NA Not applicable

    Also, with respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA is proposing to approve that New Hampshire has met the infrastructure SIP requirements pertaining to elements (A) and (E)(ii), and the PSD elements (C)(ii), (D)(i)(II)(prong 3), and (J)(iii) for which a conditional approval was previously issued. See 77 FR 63228. As discussed in detail above, New Hampshire has since met the conditions outlined in that action. Furthermore, in keeping with our recently proposed conditional approval of the New Hampshire PSD program with respect to the requirement that neighboring states be notified of the issuance of a PSD permit by New Hampshire DES (80 FR 22957), we are also proposing a conditional approval for elements (C)(ii), (D)(i)(II)(prong 3) and (J)(iii) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, with respect to the requirement to notify neighboring states.

    In addition, we are proposing to incorporate into the New Hampshire SIP the following New Hampshire statutes which were included for approval in New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submittals:

    Title I, The State and Its Government, Chapter 21-O: Department of Environmental Services, Section 21-O:11, Air Resources Council.

    Title X Public Health, Chapter 125-C Air Pollution Control, Section 125-C:1—Declaration of Policy and Purpose; Section 125-C:2—Definitions; Section 125-C:4—Rulemaking Authority; Subpoena Power; Section 125-C:6—Powers and Duties of the Commissioner; Section 125-C:8—Administration of Chapter; Delegation of Duties; Section 125-C:9—Authority of the Commissioner in Cases of Emergency; Section 125-C:10—Devices Contributing to Air Pollution; Section 125-C:10a—Municipal Waste Combustion Units; Section 125-C:11—Permit Required; Section 125-C:12—Administrative Requirements; Section 125-C:13—Criteria for Denial; Suspension or Revocation; Modification; Section 125-C:14—Rehearings and Appeals; Section 125-C:18—Existing Remedies Unimpaired; Section 125-C:19—Protection of Powers; and Section 125-C:21—Severability.

    Title X Public Health, Chapter 125-O: Multiple Pollutant Reduction Program, Section 125-O:1—Findings and Purpose; and Section 125-O:3—Integrated Power Plant Strategy.

    Additionally, we are proposing to update the 40 CFR 52.1521 classifications for several of New Hampshire's air quality control regions for ozone and sulfur dioxide based on recent air quality monitoring data collected by the state, and to grant the state's request for an exemption from the infrastructure SIP contingency plan obligation for ozone.

    As noted in Table 2, we are proposing to conditionally approve one portion of New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP submittals pertaining to the state's PSD program. The outstanding issues with the PSD program concern the lack of a requirement that neighboring states be notified of the issuance of a PSD permit by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. For this reason, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve this portion of New Hampshire's infrastructure SIP revisions for the 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, consistent with our proposed conditional approval of New Hampshire's PSD program published in the Federal Register on April 24, 2015. See 80 FR 22957.

    Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA may conditionally approve a plan based on a commitment from the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than 1 year from the date of approval. If EPA conditionally approves the commitment in a final rulemaking action, the State must meet its commitment to submit an update to its PSD program that fully remedies the lack of notification requirement mentioned above. If the State fails to do so, this action will become a disapproval one year from the date of final approval. EPA will notify the State by letter that this action has occurred. At that time, this commitment will no longer be a part of the approved New Hampshire SIP. EPA subsequently will publish a document in the Federal Register notifying the public that the conditional approval automatically converted to a disapproval. If the State meets its commitment, within the applicable time frame, the conditionally approved submission will remain a part of the SIP until EPA takes final action approving or disapproving the new submittal. If EPA disapproves the new submittal, the conditionally approved infrastructure SIP elements will also be disapproved at that time. In addition, a final disapproval would trigger the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c). If EPA approves the new submittal, the PSD program and relevant infrastructure SIP elements will be fully approved and replace the conditionally approved program in the SIP.

    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this proposal or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before EPA takes final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register, or by submitting comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier following the directions in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

    VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference into the New Hampshire SIP the statutes identified within Table 1 of this proposal. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur Oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 1, 2015. H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17475 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0404; FRL-9930-61-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Adoption of Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture Coatings and Miscellaneous Metal Parts Coatings AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland (Maryland). This revision includes amendments to Maryland's regulation for the control of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and meets the requirement to adopt reasonably available control technology (RACT) for sources covered by EPA's Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) standards for coatings for metal furniture and miscellaneous metal parts. These amendments will reduce emissions of VOC from these source categories and help Maryland attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before August 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0404 by one of the following methods:

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

    B. Email: [email protected]

    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0404, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0404. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI, or otherwise protected, through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On July 28, 2014, the State of Maryland through the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) submitted a revision to its SIP concerning the adoption of the coating standards located in the Metal Furniture Coatings and the Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTGs.

    I. Background

    Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment areas must include reasonably available control measures (RACM), including RACT for sources of emissions. Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain nonattainment areas, states must revise their SIPs to include RACT for sources of VOC emissions covered by a CTG document issued after November 15, 1990 and prior to the area's date of attainment.

    In developing these CTGs, EPA, among other things, evaluates the sources of VOC emissions from these categories, and the available control approaches for addressing these categories, including the cost of such approaches. Based on available information and data, EPA provides recommendations for RACT for VOC from these categories. States can follow the CTGs and adopt state regulations to implement the recommendations contained therein, or they can adopt alternative approaches. In either case, states must submit their RACT rules to EPA for review and approval as part of the SIP process. EPA will evaluate the rules and determine, through notice and comment rulemaking in the SIP approval process, whether the submitted rules meet the RACT requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations.

    In September 2007, EPA published a new CTG for Metal Furniture Coatings (EPA-453/R-07-005), and in September 2008, EPA published a new CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings (EPA-453/R-08-003). These CTGs discuss the nature of VOC emissions from these industries, the available control technologies for addressing such emissions, the cost of available control options, and other information. EPA developed new CTGs for these industries after reviewing existing state and local VOC emission reduction approaches, new source performance standards (NSPS), previously issued CTGs, and national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for these source categories.

    A. Metal Furniture Coatings

    Metal furniture coatings include the coatings that are applied to the surfaces of metal furniture. A metal furniture substrate is the furniture or components of furniture constructed either entirely or partially from metal. Metal furniture includes, but is not limited to, the following types of products: Household, office, institutional, laboratory, hospital, public building, restaurant, barber and beauty shop, and dental furniture, as well as components of these products. Metal furniture also includes office and store fixtures, partitions, shelving, lockers, lamps and lighting fixtures, and wastebaskets. Metal furniture coatings include paints and adhesives and are typically applied without a primer. Higher solids and powder coatings are used extensively in the metal furniture surface coating industry. Metal furniture coatings provide a covering, finish, or functional or protective layer, and can also provide a decorative finish to metal furniture.

    B. Miscellaneous Metal Parts Coatings

    Miscellaneous metal parts surface coating categories include the coatings that are applied to the surfaces of a varied range of metal parts and products. These parts or products are constructed either entirely or partially from metal. They include, but are not limited to, metal components of the following types of products as well as the products themselves: Fabricated metal products, small and large farm machinery, commercial and industrial machinery and equipment, automotive or transportation equipment, interior or exterior automotive parts, construction equipment, motor vehicle accessories, bicycles and sporting goods, toys, recreational vehicles, pleasure craft (recreational boats), extruded aluminum structural components, railroad cars, heavier vehicles,1 lawn and garden equipment, business machines, laboratory and medical equipment, electronic equipment, steel drums, metal pipes, and numerous other industrial and household products (hereinafter collectively referred to as “miscellaneous metal parts.”) The CTG applies to manufacturers of miscellaneous metal parts that surface-coat the parts they produce. Miscellaneous metal parts coatings do not include coatings that are a part of other product categories listed under section 183(e) of the CAA for which CTGs have been published or coatings addressed by other CTGs.

    1 Heavier vehicles includes all vehicles that meet the definition of the term “other motor vehicles,” as defined in the National Emission Standards for Surface Coating of Automobile and Light-Duty Trucks at 40 CFR 63.3176.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On July 28, 2014, MDE submitted to EPA a SIP revision (#14-02) concerning the adoption of the emission limits for metal furniture coatings found in the Metal Furniture Coatings CTG and miscellaneous metal parts coatings found in the Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTG.2 Maryland has adopted EPA's CTG standards for metal furniture and miscellaneous metal parts coating processes by amending Regulation .08 under COMAR 26.11.19, Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Sources. Specifically, this revision amends the existing regulation in section 26.11.19.08 by adding coating standards for both metal furniture and miscellaneous metal parts that are either equal to or more stringent than the coating standards found in EPA's CTGs. Additionally, new definitions and application methods were added to COMAR section 26.11.19.08. Tables 1 and 2 outline the emissions standards adopted by Maryland for metal furniture coatings and miscellaneous metal parts coatings. A detailed summary of EPA's review of and rationale for proposing to approve this SIP revision may be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action which is available online at regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0404.

    2 Maryland previously submitted, and EPA subsequently approved, a SIP revision to meet the requirements to adopt RACT for plastic part coatings covered by the CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. See 76 FR 64020 (October 17, 2011).

    Table 1—Metal Furniture Coating VOC Content Limits—VOC Content Limits are Expressed as Mass (Kilogram (kg) or Pound (lb)) Per Volume (Liter (l)) of Coating Less Water and Exempt Compounds, as Applied Coating Air-dried kg VOC/l
  • coating
  • lb VOC/l
  • coating
  • Baked kg VOC/l
  • coating
  • lb VOC/l
  • coating
  • Extreme high gloss 0.340 2.8 0.360 3.0 Extreme performance 0.420 3.5 0.360 3.0 General, multi-component 0.340 2.8 0.275 2.3 General, one-component 0.275 2.3 0.275 2.3 Metallic 0.420 3.5 0.420 3.5 Pretreatment 0.420 3.5 0.420 3.5 Solar absorbent 0.420 3.5 0.360 3.0
    Table 2—Miscellaneous Metal Parts Coating VOC Content Limits—VOC Content Limits are Expressed as Mass (Kilogram (kg) or Pound (lb)) Per Volume (Liter (l)) of Coating Less Water and Exempt Compounds, as Applied Coating Air-dried kg VOC/l
  • coating
  • lb VOC/l
  • coating
  • Baked kg VOC/l
  • coating
  • lb VOC/l
  • coating
  • Adhesion promoter 0.479 4.0 0.479 4.0 Camouflage 0.340 2.8 0.420 3.5 Electric insulating varnish 0.340 2.8 0.420 3.5 Etching filler 0.340 2.8 0.420 3.5 Extreme high-gloss 0.420 3.5 0.360 3.0 Extreme performance 0.420 3.5 0.360 3.0 General, multi-component 0.340 2.8 0.275 2.3 General, one-component 0.340 2.8 0.275 2.3 Heat-resistant 0.420 3.5 0.360 3.0 High performance architectural 0.420 3.5 0.360 3.0 High temperature 0.340 2.8 0.420 3.5 Military specification 0.340 2.8 0.280 2.3 Metallic 0.340 2.8 0.420 3.5 Mold-seal 0.340 2.8 0.420 3.5 Pan backing 0.340 2.8 0.420 3.5 Prefabricated architectural multi-component 0.420 3.5 0.280 2.3 Prefabricated architectural one-component 0.420 3.5 0.280 2.3 Pretreatment 0.340 2.8 0.420 3.5 Repair coating 0.420 3.5 0.360 3.0 Silicone release 0.340 2.8 0.420 3.5 Solar absorbent 0.420 3.5 0.360 3.0 Touch up coating 0.420 3.5 0.360 3.0 Vacuum-metalizing 0.340 2.8 0.420 3.5
    III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the State of Maryland's SIP revision submitted on July 28, 2014, adopting the requirements of EPA's CTGs for the coating of metal furniture and miscellaneous metal parts, as RACT for these source categories. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this proposed rulemaking action, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the MDE rules regarding control of VOC emissions from metal furniture and miscellaneous metal parts coatings as described as section II of this proposed action. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to Maryland's adoption of CTG recommendations for metal furniture and miscellaneous metal parts coatings does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 7, 2015. William C. Early, Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17470 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 174 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0032; FRL-9929-13] Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces the Agency's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected], Robert McNally, Director, Biopesticide and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: BPPDFRNotices@epa.gov. The mailing address for each contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the end of each pesticide petition summary.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action apply to me?

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for the division listed at the end of the pesticide petition summary of interest.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

    II. What Action is the agency taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 80 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available at http://www.regulations.gov.

    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

    New Tolerances

    PP 5F8355. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0308). Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569, Yuma, AZ 85366, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the herbicide, EPTC, (S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate), in or on grass, grown for seed, forage at 0.6 parts per million (ppm) and grass, grown for seed, hay at 0.5 ppm. An analytical method using gas chromatography with nitrogen-phosphorus detection is used to measure and evaluate the chemical, EPTC, and its hydroxy metabolites. Contact: RD.

    PP 5F8365. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0375). Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc. (d/b/a ADAMA), 3120 Highwoods Blvd., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27604, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the insecticide, fluensulfone, in or on tomato, paste at 1 parts per million (ppm). The LC-MS/MS residue analytical method is used to measure and evaluate the chemical fluensulfone (to be measured by residues of 3,4,4-trifluoro-but-3-end-1-sulfonic acid, expressed as the stoichiometric equivalent of fluensulfone). Contact: RD.

    PP 3F8220. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0114). EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of May 23, 2014, (79 FR 29729) concerning pending filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities. This document corrects the notification for petition PP 3F8220 by adding the missing entry for dried fruiting vegetable at 0.9 ppm. The original notice was for E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (DuPont), 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, DE 19898, which requested to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide oxathiapiprolin, 1-(4-{4-[(5RS)-5-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-1,2-oxazol-3-yl]-1,3-thiazol-2-yl{time}-1-piperidyl)-2-[5-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-1-yl] ethanone. Contact: RD.

    Amended Tolerances

    PP 5F8346. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0339). Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569, Yuma, AZ, 85366 requests to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.448 for residues of the insecticide, hexythiazox, in or on cotton, gin byproducts to 15 parts per million (ppm) and cotton, undelinted seed to 0.5 ppm. The high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) using mass spectrometric detection (LC-MS/MS) analytical method is used to measure and evaluate residues of hexythiazox and its metabolites containing the PT-1-3 moiety. Contact: RD.

    PP 5F8356. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0338). Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569, Yuma, AZ 85366, requests to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.448 for residues of the insecticide, hexythiazox, in or on fruit, citrus group 10 to 0.6 parts per million (ppm) and citrus, oil to 26 ppm. The high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) using mass spectrometric detection (LC-MS/MS) analytical method is used to measure and evaluate residues of hexythiazox and its metabolites containing the PT-1-3 moiety. Contact: RD.

    Tolerance Exemptions

    PP IN-10750. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0363). Scientific & Regulatory Solutions, L.L.C., 3450 Old Washington Rd # 303, Waldorf, MD 20602, on behalf of SNF, Inc., 1 Chemical Plant Road, Riceboro, GA 31321, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-propen-1-aminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-propenyl-, chloride, homopolymer (CAS Reg. No. 26062-79-3) when used as an ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy processing equipment and food processing equipment and utensils in accordance with 40 CFR 180.940(a). The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.

    PP IN-10815. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0350). Keller and Heckman, 1001 G Street NW., Suite 500 West, Washington, DC 20001 on behalf of C.P. Kelco U.S., Inc., 3100 Cumberland Blvd., Suite 600, Atlanta, GA 30339 requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of D-glucurono-D-gluco-6-deoxy-L-mannan, acetate, calcium magnesium potassium sodium salt (CAS Reg. No. 595585-15-2) when used as an inert ingredient applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest under 40 CFR 180.910. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.

    Amended Tolerance Exemption

    PP 4F8342. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0099). SciReg, Inc., 12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192 (on behalf of bio-ferm GmbH, Technologiezentrum Tulln, Technopark 1, Tulln, 3430, Austria), requests to amend an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.1312 for residues of the fungicide Aureobasidium pullulans strains DSM 14940 and DSM 14941 in or on all food commodities. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because the petitioner is submitting a petition to establish a postharvest exemption from the requirement of a tolerance and, therefore, an analytical method is not required. Contact: BPPD.

    New Inert Tolerance

    PP IN-10818. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0395). Itaconix Corporation, 2 Marin Way, Stratham, NH 03885, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of butanedioic acid, 2-methylene-, homopolymer, sodium salt (CAS Reg. No. 26099-89-8), when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.960. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.

    Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: July 8, 2015. Jennifer Mclain, Acting, Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17674 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 300 RIN 0648-XE001 International Fisheries; Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; Fishing Effort Limits in Purse Seine Fisheries for 2015 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of receipt of petition for rulemaking; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces the receipt of, and requests public comment on, a petition for rulemaking from Tri Marine Management Company, LLC (“Tri Marine”). The petitioner requests that NOAA undertake an emergency rulemaking to implement the 2015 limit on fishing effort by U.S. purse seine vessels on the high seas and in the U.S. exclusive economic zone in the area of application of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Convention), and to issue a rule exempting from the limit any U.S. purse seine vessel that, pursuant to contract or declaration of intent, delivers or will deliver at least half its catch to tuna processing facilities in American Samoa.

    DATES:

    Comments on the petition must be submitted in writing by August 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the petition, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0088, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.

    1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0088,

    2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and

    3. Enter or attach your comments.

    —OR—

    Mail: Submit written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, might not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name and address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter“N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    Copies of the petition are available at www.regulations.gov or may be obtained from Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS PIRO (see address above).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Graham, NMFS PIRO, 808-725-5032.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on Purse Seine Fishing Effort Limits in the Convention Area

    Since 2009, NMFS regulations have established limits on fishing effort by U.S. purse seine fishing vessels in the area of application of the Convention (Convention Area), including in the area known as the Effort Limit Area for Purse Seine, or ELAPS, which is comprised of all areas of high seas and the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) between the latitudes of 20° N. and 20° S. in the Convention Area. These regulations are promulgated under authority of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), and have been codified at 50 CFR 300.223(a).

    NMFS has established the purse seine fishing effort limits in the ELAPS to satisfy the obligations of the United States under the Convention, to which it is a party. Among those obligations is the need to implement the decisions of the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Commission), which was established by the Convention. NMFS has established the purse seine fishing effort limits in the ELAPS to implement a series of Commission decisions for tropical tuna stocks in the Convention Area.

    Recently, NMFS established a purse seine fishing effort limit in the ELAPS for 2015 in an interim rule published May 21, 2015 (80 FR 29220). The limit is 1,828 fishing days.

    On June 8, 2015, NMFS issued a notice announcing that the purse seine fishery in the ELAPS would close as a result of reaching the limit of 1,828 fishing days (80 FR 32313). The closure took effect June 15, 2015, and will remain in effect through December 31, 2015. The closure applies to all U.S. purse seine fishing vessels.

    Petition for Rulemaking

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act, interested persons may petition Federal agencies for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.

    In a petition to NMFS dated May 12, 2015, Tri Marine requested that NMFS take two actions. First, Tri Marine requested that “NOAA undertake an emergency rulemaking with respect to the 2015 ELAPS limits for fishing days on the high seas.” Second, Tri Marine requested that “NOAA issue a rule exempting from that high seas limit any US flag purse seine vessel which, pursuant to contract or declaration of intent, delivers or will deliver at least 50 percent of its catch to tuna processing facilities based in American Samoa.”

    At the time of Tri Marine's initial request, NMFS was preparing to issue an interim rule establishing a limit on purse seine fishing effort in the ELAPS for 2015. As described above, NMFS established a limit in the ELAPS for 2015 in an interim rule published May 21, 2015. Accordingly, the first part of Tri Marine's request has been addressed. In the interim rule, NMFS acknowledged that it had received Tri Marine's petition for rulemaking, and stated that it will consider and respond to the petition separately from the interim rule.

    With regard to the second part of Tri Marine's request, the petition explains that as a result of decisions by the Republic of Kiribati, U.S. purse seine vessels' access to their traditional fishing grounds in 2015 has been dramatically reduced, and that the high seas portion of the ELAPS can be expected to be closed to fishing as early as June. The petition further states that because of the limited fishing grounds now available to the American Samoa-based purse seine fleet and other factors, including an unusually low tuna price and the higher cost of access to fishing grounds in the region, the ability of American Samoa-based tuna vessels to operate profitably is in serious question, and the loss of a reliable supply of tuna from these vessels will jeopardize the ability of the canneries in American Samoa to compete in world markets. The petition states that under the Convention, American Samoa is afforded special treatment as a small island developing state or participating territory for purposes of applying conservation and management measures of the Commission, and therefore NMFS should develop rules that exempt from the ELAPS limit those vessels that deliver to the canneries in American Samoa.

    The petition includes further information on the basis of the request, including information related to the recommendations of the Governor of American Samoa's Fisheries Task Force, and an “issue brief” with statements about the nature of the issue and how the requested rule(s) would address it.

    In a second letter to NMFS dated May 26, 2015, which supplements the May 12, 2015, petition, Tri Marine acknowledged the interim rule published May 21, 2015, and amended its request. Tri Marine requested that “NOAA undertake an emergency rulemaking with respect to the 2015 ELAPS limits for fishing days (both) on the high seas and in the US EEZ,” and further requested that “NOAA issue a rule exempting from the ELAPS limits any US flag purse seine vessel which, pursuant to contract or declaration of intent, delivers or will deliver at least 50 percent of its catch to tuna processing facilities based in American Samoa.”

    See the ADDRESSES section for instructions on how to obtain copies of the petition.

    Request for Comments

    NMFS has determined that the petition contains enough information to enable NMFS to consider its substance. NMFS is issuing this notice to solicit comments on the petitioner's request. NMFS is particularly interested in comments on the nature and severity of the problem identified by the petitioner, whether any exigencies exist, and whether the petitioner's requests would solve the alleged problem in an efficient and fair manner.

    Next Steps

    NMFS will consider public comments in deciding whether to proceed with the rulemaking(s) requested by Tri Marine. Once NMFS decides whether or not to proceed, or to proceed in part, it will publish a notice of its decision in the Federal Register.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.

    Dated: July 13, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17571 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 424 [Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0016; DOC 150506429-5586-02; 4500030113] RIN 1018-BA53; 0648-BF06 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revisions to the Regulations for Petitions AGENCY:

    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Interior; National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; extension of the comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, announce the extension of the public comment period on our May 21, 2015, proposed revisions to the regulations concerning petitions under section 4(b)(3) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2015 (80 FR 29286), is extended. We will accept comments from all interested parties until September 18, 2015. Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below), the deadline for submitting an electronic comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on that date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the docket number for the proposed rule, which is FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0016. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!” Please ensure that you have found the correct rulemaking before submitting your comment.

    U.S. mail: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0016; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: BPHC, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    We will post all comments onhttp://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Douglas Krofta, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Conservation and Classification, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803, telephone 703/358-2171; facsimile 703/358-1735; or Angela Somma, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, telephone 301/427-8403. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800/877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Comments

    We will accept written comments and information during this extended comment period on our proposed revisions to the regulations concerning petitions under section 4(b)(3) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), that was published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2015 (80 FR 29286). We will consider information we receive from all interested parties on or before the close of the comment period (see DATES).

    If you have already submitted comments or information during the public comment period that began May 21, 2015, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final rule.

    You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.

    If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Background

    On May 21, 2015, we published a proposed rule regarding changes to the regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 424.14 concerning petitions, to improve the content and specificity of petitions and to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the petitions process to support species conservation. Our proposed revisions to § 424.14 would clarify and enhance the procedures by which the Services will evaluate petitions under section 4(b)(3) of the Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3). We proposed to revise the regulations pertaining to the petition process to provide greater clarity to the public on the petition-submission process, which will assist petitioners in providing complete petitions. These revisions would also maximize the efficiency with which the Services process petitions, making the best use of available resources. These changes would improve the quality of petitions through expanded content requirements and guidelines, and, in doing so, better focus the Services' energies on petitions that merit further analysis.

    The comment period on the May 21, 2015, proposed rule was originally scheduled to close on July 20, 2015. We have received comments requesting an extension to that date, and we now announce that we will accept comments on the proposed revisions to the regulations concerning petitions at 50 CFR 424.14 as specified in DATES.

    Authority:

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: July 9, 2015. Signed: Michael J. Bean, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. Dated: July 9, 2015. Signed: Samuel D. Rauch, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17580 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-3510-22-P
    80 137 Friday, July 17, 2015 Notices AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Notice of Public Information Collection, Request for Comment on the Continued Use of the Partner Information Form (0412-0577) in Compliance With the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 AGENCY:

    U.S. Agency for International Development.

    ACTION:

    60-Day Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Agency for International Development invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This information collection was first approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 2008, and the Partner Information Form has been used successfully in screening programs in West Bank/Gaza and elsewhere since the OMB approval.

    DATES:

    The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days from the date of its publication for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 0412-0577 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID AID_FRDOC_0001. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID number AID_FRDOC_0001;

    (2) Email. Submit comments to [email protected];

    (3) Mail. Submit written comments to George Higginbotham, Senior Management Policy Analyst, USAID, RRB, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20523

    Written comments should address one or more of the following points:

    (a) Whether the continuing collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

    (b) The accuracy of the burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument (PIF) and supporting documents, to George Higginbotham, Senior Management Policy Analyst, USAID, RRB, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20523 or at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Number: 200705-0412-003.

    Form Number: 0412-0577.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of Information Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Partner Information Form.

    (3) Agency form number: AID500-13.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: The U.S. Agency for International Development intends to continue collection of information from individuals and/or officers of for-profit and not-for-profit non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who apply for USAID contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, other funding from USAID, or who apply for registration with USAID as Private and Voluntary Organizations. The collection of this information will be used to conduct screening to help mitigate the risk that USAID funds or USAID-funded activities inadvertently provide support to entities or individuals associated with terrorism. Screening programs are being conducted in West Bank/Gaza, Afghanistan, and pilot countries under the Partner Vetting System Pilot Program (Guatemala, Kenya, Lebanon, Philippines, and Ukraine).

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: USAID estimates that for pilot and non-pilot vetting programs, 3,800 PIFs will be completed in a calendar year and the additional requirements for partner vetting will add 1.25 hours (75 minutes) to an USAID acquisition or assistance award application.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 4,750 hours (3,800 forms multiplied by 75 minutes per form, divided by 60 minutes).

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: With the implementation of the partner requested secure portal, USAID has made the completion and modification of the PIF much easier for the implementing partner community. No start-up, capital, or maintenance costs to applicants are anticipated as a result of this collection.

    Dated: July 6, 2015. George Higginbotham, Senior Management Policy Analyst, U.S. Agency for International Development.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17567 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6116-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0047] Oral Rabies Vaccine Trial; Availability of a Supplemental Environmental Assessment AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared a supplemental environmental assessment (EA) relative to an oral rabies vaccination field trial in New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Vermont, and West Virginia. The supplemental EA analyzes expanding the field trial for an experimental oral rabies vaccine for wildlife to additional areas in Ohio and increasing bait distribution density in portions of West Virginia. The proposed field trial is necessary to evaluate whether the wildlife rabies vaccine will produce sufficient levels of population immunity against raccoon rabies. We are making the supplemental EA available to the public for review and comment.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0047.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0047, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    The supplemental environmental assessment and any comments we receive may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0047 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    This notice and the supplemental EA are also posted on the APHIS Web site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/ws/ws_nepa_environmental_documents.shtml.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Richard Chipman, Rabies Program Coordinator, Wildlife Services, APHIS, 59 Chennell Drive, Suite 7, Concord, NH 03301; (603) 223-9623. To obtain copies of the supplemental environmental assessment, contact Ms. Beth Kabert, Staff Wildlife Biologist, Wildlife Services, 140-C Locust Grove Road, Pittstown, NJ 08867; (908) 735-5654, fax (908) 735-0821, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Wildlife Services (WS) program in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) cooperates with Federal agencies, State and local governments, and private individuals to research and implement the best methods of managing conflicts between wildlife and human health and safety, agriculture, property, and natural resources. Wildlife-borne diseases that can affect domestic animals and humans are among the types of conflicts that APHIS-WS addresses. Wildlife is the dominant reservoir of rabies in the United States.

    Currently, APHIS conducts an oral rabies vaccination (ORV) program to control the spread of rabies. The ORV program has utilized a vaccinia-rabies glycoprotein (V-RG) vaccine. APHIS-WS' use of the V-RG vaccine has resulted in several notable accomplishments, including the elimination of canine rabies from sources in Mexico, the successful control of gray fox rabies virus variant in western Texas, and the prevention of any appreciable spread of raccoon rabies in the eastern United States. While the prevention of any appreciable spread of raccoon rabies in the eastern United States represents a major accomplishment in rabies management, the V-RG vaccine has not been effective in eliminating raccoon rabies from high-risk spread corridors. This fact prompted APHIS-WS to evaluate rabies vaccines capable of producing higher levels of population immunity against raccoon rabies to better control the spread of this disease.

    In 2011, APHIS-WS initiated a field trial to study the immunogenicity and safety of a promising new wildlife rabies vaccine, human adenovirus type 5 rabies glycoprotein recombinant vaccine in portions of West Virginia, including U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service National Forest System lands. The vaccine used in this field trial is an experimental oral rabies vaccine called ONRAB (produced by Artemis Technologies Inc., Guelph, Ontario, Canada).

    To further assess the immunogenicity of ONRAB in raccoons and skunks for raccoon rabies virus variant, APHIS-WS determined the need to expand the field trial into portions of New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Vermont, and West Virginia, including National Forest System lands. On July 9, 2012, we published in the Federal Register (77 FR 40322-40323, Docket No. APHIS-2012-0052) a notice 1 in which we announced the availability, for public review and comment, of an environmental assessment (EA) that examined the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed field trial to test the safety and efficacy of the ONRAB vaccine in New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Vermont, and West Virginia. We announced the availability of our final EA and finding of no significant impact in a notice published in the Federal Register (see footnote 1) on August 16, 2012 (77 FR 49409-49410, Docket No. APHIS-2012-0052). The field trial began in August 2012, taking place within approximately 10,483 square miles in portions of New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Vermont, and West Virginia, including portions of National Forest System lands, excluding Wilderness Areas. The field trial is a collaborative effort among APHIS-WS; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the vaccine manufacturer; the appropriate agriculture, health, and wildlife agencies for the States of New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Vermont, and West Virginia; the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources; and the Quebec Ministry of Natural Resources and Wildlife.

    1 To view the notice, the comments we received, the EA, and the followup finding of no significant impact, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0052.

    Given promising immunogenicity levels documented during the field trial of the ONRAB vaccine and the need for further field testing, APHIS is considering expanding the current field trial for the ONRAB vaccine in Ohio. APHIS has prepared a supplemental EA in which we analyze expanding the area of the field trial zone in Ohio to include Ashtabula and Trumbull Counties. This would add approximately 405 square miles to the field trial. In addition, the supplemental EA analyzes the impacts associated with increasing the ONRAB ORV bait distribution density from the program standard rate of 194-388 baits per square mile to 776 baits per square mile over a portion of the current field trial zones in West Virginia. The supplemental EA analyzes a number of environmental issues or concerns with the ONRAB vaccine and activities associated with the field trial, such as capture and handling animals for monitoring and surveillance purposes with regard to the proposed action.

    We are making the supplemental EA available to the public for review and comment. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before the date listed under the heading DATES at the beginning of this notice.

    The supplemental EA may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room). In addition, paper copies may be obtained by calling or writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    The EA has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

    Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of July 2015. Jere L. Dick, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17608 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Economic Research Service Notice of Intent To Request Renewal of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    Economic Research Service

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) implementing regulations, this notice announces the Economic Research Service's (ERS) intention to request renewal of approval for an annual information collection on supplemental food security questions in the Current Population Survey (CPS), commencing with the December 2016 survey. These data will be used: To monitor household-level food security and food insecurity in the United States; to assess food security and changes in food security for population subgroups; to assess the need for, and performance of, domestic food assistance programs; to improve the measurement of food security; and to provide information to aid in public policy decision making.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by September 15, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Address all comments concerning this notice to Alisha Coleman-Jensen, Food Assistance Branch, Food Economics Division, Economic Research Service, Room 5-233A, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Mail Stop 1800, Washington, DC 20050-1800. Submit electronic comments to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alisha Coleman-Jensen at the address in the preamble. Tel. 202-694-5456.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement.

    OMB Number: 0536-0043.

    Expiration Date of Approval: January 31, 2016.

    Type of Request: Intent To Seek Approval To Extend an Information Collection for 3 Years.

    Abstract: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) and OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 (60 FR 44978, August 29, 1995), this notice announces the ERS intention to request renewal of approval for an annual information collection. The U.S. Census Bureau will supplement the December CPS, beginning in 2016, with questions regarding household food shopping, use of food and nutrition assistance programs, food sufficiency, and difficulties in meeting household food needs. A similar supplement has been appended to the CPS annually since 1995. The last collection was in December 2014.

    ERS is responsible for conducting studies and evaluations of the Nation's food and nutrition assistance programs that are administered by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. In Fiscal Year 2014, the Department spent over $104 billion to ensure access to nutritious, healthful diets for all Americans. The Food and Nutrition Service administers the 15 food assistance programs of the USDA including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly called the Food Stamp Program, the National School Lunch Program, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). These programs, which serve 1 in 4 Americans, represent our Nation's commitment to the principle that no one in our country should lack the food needed for an active, healthy life. They provide a safety net to people in need. The programs' goals are to provide needy persons with access to a more nutritious diet, to improve the eating habits of the Nation's children, and to help America's farmers by providing an outlet for the distribution of food purchased under farmer assistance authorities.

    The data collected by the food security supplement will be used to monitor the prevalence of food security and the prevalence and severity of food insecurity among the Nation's households. The prevalence of these conditions as well as year-to-year trends in their prevalence will be estimated at the national level and for population subgroups. The data will also be used to monitor the amounts that households spend for food and their use of community food pantries and emergency kitchens. These statistics along with research based on the data will be used to identify the causes and consequences of food insecurity, and to assess the need for, and performance of, domestic food assistance programs. The data will also be used to improve the measurement of food security and to develop measures of additional aspects and dimensions of food security. This consistent measurement of the extent and severity of food insecurity will aid in policy decision-making.

    The supplemental survey instrument was developed in conjunction with food security experts nationwide as well as survey method experts within the Census Bureau and was reviewed in 2006 by the Committee on National Statistics of the National Research Council. This supplemental information will be collected by both personal visit and telephone interviews in conjunction with the regular monthly CPS interviewing. Interviews will be conducted using Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) and Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) methods.

    Authority: Legislative authority for the planned data collection is H.R. 2642, Sec. 4023 (1) of the Agricultural Act of 2014. This section authorizes officials and contractors acting on behalf of the Secretary to cooperate with States, State agencies, local agencies, institutions, facilities such data consortiums, and contractors to conduct program research and evaluations of programs authorized under the Agricultural Act.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this data collection is estimated to average 7.2 minutes (after rounding) for each household that responds to the labor force portion of the CPS. The estimate is based on the number of households that were asked each question in recent survey years (2013 and 2014) and typical reading and response times for the questions.

    Respondents: Individuals or households.

    Estimated Total Number of Respondents: 53,657.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 6,450 hours. Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Alisha Coleman-Jensen at the address in the preamble.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments should be sent to the address in the preamble. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Signed at Washington, DC, July 1, 2015. Greg Pompelli, Associate Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17585 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Farm Service Agency Information Collection; Measurement Service (MS) Records AGENCY:

    Farm Service Agency, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on an extension of a currently approved information collection associated with the MS Records.

    DATES:

    We will consider comments that we receive by September 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    We invite you to submit comments on this notice. In your comments, include date, volume and page number, the OMB Control Number, and the title of the information collection of this issue of the Federal Register. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Clay Lagasse, Common Provisions Section, Production Emergencies and Compliance Division, USDA, FSA, Farm Programs, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mail Stop 0517, Washington, DC 20250-0517.

    You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the information collection may be requested by contacting Clay Lagasse at the above address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Clay Lagasse, (202) 205-9893.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Description of Information Collection

    Title: Measurement Service (MS) Records.

    OMB Control Number: 0560-0260.

    Expiration Date: 12/31/2015.

    Type of Request: Extension.

    Abstract: When a producer requests a measurement of acreage or production from FSA, the producer uses the form FSA-409 (Measurement Service (MS) Record) to make the request, which requires a measurement fee to be paid to FSA.

    The form is manual. The types of MS being performed are currently at the Land (Office or Field) and Commodity Bin. Using the FSA-409 to make a request, the producer provides FSA: the farm serial number, program year, farm location, contact person, and type of service request (acreage or production). The MS procedure is done in accordance with 7 CFR part 718. FSA is using the collected information to fulfill producers' measurement request and to ensure that measurements are accurate.

    A producer will use the FSA-409 to request and receive certain MS information from FSA and provide it to FSA at the time of applying for certain program benefits. The MS information includes, but is not limited to, measuring land and crop areas, quantities of farm-stored commodities, and appraising the yields of crops in the field.

    The formula used to calculate the total burden hours is “the estimated average time per response (including travel time)” times “the total estimated annual response.”

    Estimate of Annual Burden: Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response. The travel time, which is included in the total annual burden, is estimated to be 1 hour per respondent.

    Respondents: Producers.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 135,000.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual of Responses: 135,000.

    Estimated Average Time per Response: 1.25 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 168,750 hours.

    We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Evaluate the quality, utility, and clarity of the information technology; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who respond through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses where provided, will be made a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection.

    Val Dolcini, Administrator, Farm Service Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17586 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service National School Lunch, Special Milk, and School Breakfast Programs, National Average Payments/Maximum Reimbursement Rates AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice announces the annual adjustments to the “national average payments,” the amount of money the Federal Government provides States for lunches, afterschool snacks and breakfasts served to children participating in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs; to the “maximum reimbursement rates,” the maximum per lunch rate from Federal funds that a State can provide a school food authority for lunches served to children participating in the National School Lunch Program; and to the rate of reimbursement for a half-pint of milk served to non-needy children in a school or institution which participates in the Special Milk Program for Children. The payments and rates are prescribed on an annual basis each July. The annual payments and rates adjustments for the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs reflect changes in the Food Away From Home series of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. The annual rate adjustment for the Special Milk Program reflects changes in the Producer Price Index for Fluid Milk Products.

    DATES:

    These rates are effective from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Hortin, Branch Chief, Program Monitoring and Operational Support Division, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 640, Alexandria, VA 22302; or phone (703) 305-4375.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Special Milk Program for Children—Pursuant to section 3 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1772), the Department announces the rate of reimbursement for a half-pint of milk served to non-needy children in a school or institution that participates in the Special Milk Program for Children. This rate is adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Producer Price Index for Fluid Milk Products, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.

    For the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, the rate of reimbursement for a half-pint of milk served to a non-needy child in a school or institution which participates in the Special Milk Program is 20.00 cents. This reflects a decrease of 3 cents from the School Year (SY) 2014-15 level, based on the 12.89 percent decrease in the Producer Price Index for Fluid Milk Products from May 2014 to May 2015 (from a level of 251.4 in May, as previously published in the Federal Register to 219.0 in May 2015).

    As a reminder, schools or institutions with pricing programs that elect to serve milk free to eligible children continue to receive the average cost of a half-pint of milk (the total cost of all milk purchased during the claim period divided by the total number of purchased half-pints) for each half-pint served to an eligible child.

    National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs—Pursuant to sections 11 and 17A of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, (42 U.S.C. 1759a and 1766a), and section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773), the Department annually announces the adjustments to the National Average Payment Factors and to the maximum Federal reimbursement rates for lunches and afterschool snacks served to children participating in the National School Lunch Program and breakfasts served to children participating in the School Breakfast Program. Adjustments are prescribed each July 1, based on changes in the Food Away From Home series of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor. The changes in the national average payment rates for schools and residential child care institutions for the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016 reflect a 2.97 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers during the 12-month period May 2014 to May 2015 (from a level of 247.952 in May 2014, as previously published in the Federal Register to 255.322 in May 2015). Adjustments to the national average payment rates for all lunches served under the National School Lunch Program, breakfasts served under the School Breakfast Program, and afterschool snacks served under the National School Lunch Program are rounded down to the nearest whole cent.

    Lunch Payment Levels—Section 4 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1753) provides general cash for food assistance payments to States to assist schools in purchasing food. The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act provides two different section 4 payment levels for lunches served under the National School Lunch Program. The lower payment level applies to lunches served by school food authorities in which less than 60 percent of the lunches served in the school lunch program during the second preceding school year were served free or at a reduced price. The higher payment level applies to lunches served by school food authorities in which 60 percent or more of the lunches served during the second preceding school year were served free or at a reduced price.

    To supplement these section 4 payments, section 11 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1759 (a)) provides special cash assistance payments to aid schools in providing free and reduced price lunches. The section 11 National Average Payment Factor for each reduced price lunch served is set at 40 cents less than the factor for each free lunch.

    As authorized under sections 8 and 11 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1757 and 1759a), maximum reimbursement rates for each type of lunch are prescribed by the Department in this Notice. These maximum rates are to ensure equitable disbursement of Federal funds to school food authorities.

    Section 201 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010—Section 201 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 made significant changes to the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. On January 3, 2014, the final rule entitled, “Certification of Compliance With Meal Requirements for the National School Lunch Program Under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010” (79 FR 325), was published and provides eligible school food authorities with performance-based cash reimbursement in addition to the general and special cash assistance described above. The final rule requires that school food authorities be certified by the State agency as being in compliance with the updated meal pattern and nutrition standard requirements set forth in amendments to 7 CFR parts 210 and 220 on January 26, 2012, in the final rule entitled “Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs” (77 FR 4088). Certified school food authorities are eligible to receive performance-based cash assistance for each reimbursable lunch served (an additional six cents per lunch available beginning October 1, 2012, and adjusted annually thereafter).

    Afterschool Snack Payments in Afterschool Care Programs—Section 17A of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766a) establishes National Average Payments for free, reduced price and paid afterschool snacks as part of the National School Lunch Program.

    Breakfast Payment Factors—Section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773) establishes National Average Payment Factors for free, reduced price and paid breakfasts served under the School Breakfast Program and additional payments for free and reduced price breakfasts served in schools determined to be in “severe need” because they serve a high percentage of needy children.

    Revised Payments

    The following specific section 4, section 11 and section 17A National Average Payment Factors and maximum reimbursement rates for lunch, the afterschool snack rates, and the breakfast rates are in effect from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. Due to a higher cost of living, the average payments and maximum reimbursements for Alaska and Hawaii are higher than those for all other States. The District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Guam use the figures specified for the contiguous States.

    National School Lunch Program Payments

    Section 4 National Average Payment Factors—In school food authorities which served less than 60 percent free and reduced price lunches in School Year (SY) 2013-14, the payments for meals served are: Contiguous States—paid rate—29 cents (1 cent increase from the SY 2014-15 level), free and reduced price rate—29 cents (1 cent increase), maximum rate—37 cents (1 cent increase); Alaska—paid rate—48 cents (2 cents increase), free and reduced price rate—48 cents (2 cents increase), maximum rate—58 cents (1 cent increase); Hawaii—paid rate—34 cents (1 cent increase), free and reduced price rate—34 cents (1 cent increase), maximum rate—42 cents (1 cent increase).

    In school food authorities which served 60 percent or more free and reduced price lunches in School Year 2013-14, payments are: Contiguous States—paid rate—31 cents (1 cent increase from the SY 2014-15 level), free and reduced price rate—31 cents (1 cent increase), maximum rate—37 cents (1 cent increase); Alaska—paid rate—50 cents (2 cents increase), free and reduced price rate—50 cents (2 cents increase), maximum rate—58 cents (1 cent increase); Hawaii—paid rate—36 cents (1 cent increase), free and reduced price rate—36 cents (1 cent increase), maximum rate—42 cents (1 cent increase).

    School food authorities certified to receive the performance-based cash assistance will receive an additional 6 cents (adjusted annually) added to the above amounts as part of their section 4 payments.

    Section 11 National Average Payment FactorsContiguous States—free lunch—278 cents (8 cents increase from the SY 2014-15 level), reduced price lunch—238 cents (8 cents increase); Alaska—free lunch—451 cents (13 cents increase), reduced price lunch—411 cents (13 cents increase); Hawaii—free lunch—326 cents (10 cents increase), reduced price lunch—286 cents (10 cents increase).

    Afterschool Snacks in Afterschool Care Programs—The payments are: Contiguous States—free snack—84 cents (2 cents increase from the SY 2014-15 level), reduced price snack—42 cents (1 cent increase), paid snack—07 cents (no change); Alaska—free snack -137 cents (4 cents increase), reduced price snack—68 cents (2 cents increase), paid snack—12 cents (no change); Hawaii—free snack—99 cents (3 cents increase), reduced price snack—49 cents (1 cent increase), paid snack—09 cents (1 cent increase) .

    School Breakfast Program Payments

    For schools “not in severe need” the payments are: Contiguous States—free breakfast—166 cents (4 cents increase from the SY 2014-15 level), reduced price breakfast—136 cents (4 cents increase), paid breakfast—29 cents (1 cent increase); Alaska—free breakfast—266 cents (7 cents increase), reduced price breakfast—236 cents (7 cents increase), paid breakfast—43 cents (1 cent increase); Hawaii—free breakfast—194 cents (6 cents increase), reduced price breakfast—164 cents (6 cents increase), paid breakfast—33 cents (1 cent increase).

    For schools in “severe need” the payments are: Contiguous States—free breakfast—199 cents (6 cents increase from the SY 2014-15 level), reduced price breakfast—169 cents (6 cents increase), paid breakfast—29 cents (1 cent increase); Alaska—free breakfast—319 cents (9 cents increase), reduced price breakfast—289 cents (9 cents increase), paid breakfast—43 cents (1 cent increase); Hawaii—free breakfast—232 cents (7 cents increase), reduced price breakfast—202 cents (7 cents increase), paid breakfast—33 cents (1 cent increase).

    Payment Chart

    The following chart illustrates the lunch National Average Payment Factors with the sections 4 and 11 already combined to indicate the per lunch amount; the maximum lunch reimbursement rates; the reimbursement rates for afterschool snacks served in afterschool care programs; the breakfast National Average Payment Factors including “severe need” schools; and the milk reimbursement rate. All amounts are expressed in dollars or fractions thereof. The payment factors and reimbursement rates used for the District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Guam are those specified for the contiguous States.

    School Programs—Meal, Snack and Milk Payments to States and School Food Authorities [Expressed in dollars or fractions thereof] [Effective from: July 1, 2015-June 30, 2016] National school lunch program 1 Less than 60% Less than 60% + 6 cents 2 60% or more 60% or more + 6 cents 2 Maximum rate Maximum rate + 6 cents 2 Contiguous States: Paid 0.29 0.35 0.31 0.37 0.37 0.43 Reduced price 2.67 2.73 2.69 2.75 2.84 2.90 Free 3.07 3.13 3.09 3.15 3.24 3.30 Alaska: Paid 0.48 0.54 0.50 0.56 0.58 0.64 Reduced price 4.59 4.65 4.61 4.67 4.83 4.89 Free 4.99 5.05 5.01 5.07 5.23 5.29 Hawaii: Paid 0.34 0.40 0.36 0.42 0.42 0.48 Reduced price 3.20 3.26 3.22 3.28 3.38 3.44 Free 3.60 3.66 3.62 3.68 3.78 3.84 School breakfast program Non-severe need Severe need CONTIGUOUS STATES: Paid 0.29 0.29 Reduced price 1.36 1.69 Free 1.66 1.99 ALASKA: Paid 0.43 0.43 Reduced price 2.36 2.89 Free 2.66 3.19 HAWAII: Paid 0.33 0.33 Reduced price 1.64 2.02 Free 1.94 2.32 Special milk Program All milk Paid milk Free milk Pricing programs without free option 0.20 N/A N/A. Pricing programs with free option N/A 0.20 Average Cost Per 1/2 Pint of Milk. Nonpricing programs 0.20 N/A N/A. Afterschool Snacks Served in Afterschool Care Programs CONTIGUOUS STATES: Paid 0.07 Reduced price 0.42 Free 0.84 ALASKA: Paid 0.12 Reduced price 0.68 Free 1.37 HAWAII: Paid 0.09 Reduced price 0.49 Free 0.99 1 Payment listed for Free and Reduced Price Lunches include both section 4 and section 11 funds. 2 Performance-based cash reimbursement (adjusted annually for inflation).

    This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act.

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), no new recordkeeping or reporting requirements have been included that are subject to approval from the Office of Management and Budget.

    This notice has been determined to be not significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

    National School Lunch, School Breakfast and Special Milk Programs are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.555, No. 10.553 and No. 10.556, respectively, and are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR 415.3-415.6).

    Authority:

    Sections 4, 8, 11 and 17A of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 1753, 1757, 1759a, 1766a) and sections 3 and 4(b) of the Child Nutrition Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 1772 and 42 U.S.C. 1773(b)).

    Dated: July 12, 2015. Audrey Rowe, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17600 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Food Distribution Program: Value of Donated Foods From July 1, 2015 Through June 30, 2016 AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the national average value of donated foods or, where applicable, cash in lieu of donated foods, to be provided in school year 2016 (July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016) for each lunch served by schools participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and for each lunch and supper served by institutions participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).

    DATES:

    Effective date: July 1, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carolyn Smalkowski, Program Analyst, Policy Branch, Food Distribution Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594; or telephone (703) 305-2680.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    These programs are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Nos. 10.555 and 10.558 and are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, and final rule related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983.)

    This notice imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping provisions that are subject to Office of Management and Budget review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. This notice was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

    National Average Minimum Value of Donated Foods for the Period July 1, 2015 Through June 30, 2016

    This notice implements mandatory provisions of sections 6(c) and 17(h)(1)(B) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1755(c) and 1766(h)(1)(B)). Section 6(c)(1)(A) of the Act establishes the national average value of donated food assistance to be given to States for each lunch served in the NSLP at 11.00 cents per meal. Pursuant to section 6(c)(1)(B), this amount is subject to annual adjustments on July 1 of each year to reflect changes in a three-month average value of the Producer Price Index for Foods Used in Schools and Institutions for March, April, and May each year (Price Index). Section 17(h)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the same value of donated foods (or cash in lieu of donated foods) for school lunches shall also be established for lunches and suppers served in the CACFP. Notice is hereby given that the national average minimum value of donated foods, or cash in lieu thereof, per lunch under the NSLP (7 CFR part 210) and per lunch and supper under the CACFP (7 CFR part 226) shall be 23.75 cents for the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016.

    The Price Index is computed using five major food components in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index (cereal and bakery products; meats, poultry and fish; dairy; processed fruits and vegetables; and fats and oils). Each component is weighted using the relative weight as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The value of food assistance is adjusted each July 1 by the annual percentage change in a three-month average value of the Price Index for March, April, and May each year. The three-month average of the Price Index decreased by 3.75 percent from 217.35 for March, April, and May of 2014, as previously published in the Federal Register, to 209.20 for the same three months in 2015. When computed on the basis of unrounded data and rounded to the nearest one-quarter cent, the resulting national average for the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016 will be 23.75 cents per meal. This is a decrease of one cent from the school year 2015 (July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015) rate.

    Authority:

    Sections 6(c)(1)(A) and (B), 6(e)(1), and 17(h)(1)(B) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1755(c)(1)(A) and (B) and (e)(1), and 1766(h)(1)(B)).

    Dated: July 12, 2015. Audrey Rowe, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17599 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Child and Adult Care Food Program: National Average Payment Rates, Day Care Home Food Service Payment Rates, and Administrative Reimbursement Rates for Sponsoring Organizations of Day Care Homes for the Period, July 1, 2015 Through June 30, 2016 AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the annual adjustments to the national average payment rates for meals and snacks served in child care centers, outside-school-hours care centers, at-risk afterschool care centers, and adult day care centers; the food service payment rates for meals and snacks served in day care homes; and the administrative reimbursement rates for sponsoring organizations of day care homes, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. Further adjustments are made to these rates to reflect the higher costs of providing meals in the States of Alaska and Hawaii. The adjustments contained in this notice are made on an annual basis each July, as required by the laws and regulations governing the Child and Adult Care Food Program.

    DATES:

    These rates are effective from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Hortin, Branch Chief, Program Monitoring and Operational Support Division, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 640, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594; phone 703-305-4375.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Definitions

    The terms used in this notice have the meanings ascribed to them in the Child and Adult Care Food Program regulations, 7 CFR part 226.

    Background

    Pursuant to sections 4, 11, and 17 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1753, 1759a and 1766), section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773) and 7 CFR 226.4, 226.12 and 226.13 of the Program regulations, notice is hereby given of the new payment rates for institutions participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). These rates are in effect during the period, July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016.

    As provided for under the law, all rates in the CACFP must be revised annually, on July 1, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor, for the most recent 12-month period. In accordance with this mandate, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) last published the adjusted national average payment rates for centers, the food service payment rates for day care homes, and the administrative reimbursement rates for sponsoring organizations of day care homes, for the period from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015, on July 16, 2014, in the Federal Register at 79 FR 41531.

    Adjusted Payments

    The following national average payment factors and food service payment rates for meals and snacks are in effect from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. All amounts are expressed in dollars or fractions thereof. Due to a higher cost of living, the reimbursements for Alaska and Hawaii are higher than those for all other States. The District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam use the figures specified for the contiguous States. These rates do not include the value of USDA Foods or cash-in-lieu of USDA Foods which institutions receive as additional assistance for each lunch or supper served to participants under the Program. A notice announcing the value of USDA Foods and cash-in-lieu of USDA Foods is published separately in the Federal Register.

    National Average Payment Rates for Centers

    Payments for breakfasts served are: Contiguous States—paid rate—29 cents (1 cent increase from 2014-2015 annual level), reduced price rate—136 cents (4 cents increase), free rate—166 cents (4 cents increase); Alaska—paid rate—43 cents (1 cent increase), reduced price rate—236 cents (7 cents increase), free rate—266 cents (7 cents increase); Hawaii—paid rate—33 cents (1 cent increase), reduced price rate—164 cents (6 cents increase), free rate—194 cents (6 cents increase).

    Payments for lunch or supper served are: Contiguous States—paid rate—29 cents (1 cent increase from 2014-2015 annual level), reduced price rate—267 cents (9 cents increase), free rate—307 cents (9 cents increase); Alaska—paid rate—48 cents (2 cents increase), reduced price rate—459 cents (15 cents increase), free rate—499 cents (15 cents increase); Hawaii—paid rate—34 cents (1 cent increase), reduced price rate—320 cents (11 cents increase), free rate—360 cents (11 cents increase).

    Payments for snack served are: Contiguous States—paid rate—7 cents (no change from 2014-2015 annual level), reduced price rate—42 cents (1 cent increase), free rate—84 cents (2 cents increase); Alaska—paid rate—12 cents (no change), reduced price rate—68 cents (2 cents increase), free rate—137 cents (4 cents increase); Hawaii—paid rate—9 cents (1 cent increase), reduced price rate—49 cents (1 cent increase), free rate—99 cents (3 cents increase).

    Food Service Payment Rates for Day Care Homes

    Payments for breakfast served are: Contiguous States—tier I—132 cents (1 cent increase from 2014-2015 annual level) and tier II—48 cents (no change); Alaska—tier I—211 cents (2 cents increase) and tier II—75 cents (1 cent increase); Hawaii—tier I—154 cents (1 cent increase) and tier II—55 cents (no change).

    Payments for lunch and supper served are: Contiguous States—tier I—248 cents (1 cent increase from 2014-2015 annual level) and tier II—150 cents (1 cent increase); Alaska—tier I—402 cents (2 cents increase) and tier II—243 cents (2 cents increase); Hawaii—tier I—290 cents (2 cents increase) and tier II—175 cents (1 cent increase).

    Payments for snack served are: Contiguous States—tier I—74 cents (1 cent increase from 2014-2015 annual level) and tier II—20 cents (no change); Alaska—tier I—120 cents (1 cent increase) and tier II—33 cents (no change); Hawaii—tier I—86 cents (no change) and tier II—24 cents (1 cent increase).

    Administrative Reimbursement Rates for Sponsoring Organizations of Day Care Homes

    Monthly administrative payments to sponsors for each sponsored day care home (no changes from 2014-2015 annual levels) are: Contiguous States—initial 50 homes—111 dollars, next 150 homes—85 dollars, next 800 homes—66 dollars, each additional home—58 dollars; Alaska—initial 50 homes—180 dollars, next 150 homes—137 dollars, next 800 homes—107 dollars, each additional home—94 dollars; Hawaii—initial 50 homes—130 dollars, next 150 homes—99 dollars, next 800 homes—77 dollars, each additional home—68 dollars.

    Payment Chart

    The following chart illustrates the national average payment factors and food service payment rates for meals and snacks in effect from July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016.

    Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) [Per meal rates in whole or fractions of U.S. dollars, effective from July 1, 2015-June 30, 2016] Centers Breakfast Lunch and
  • supper
  • Supplement 1
    CONTIGUOUS STATES: PAID 0.29 0.29 0.07 REDUCED PRICE 1.36 2.67 0.42 FREE 1.66 3.07 0.84 ALASKA: PAID 0.43 0.48 0.12 REDUCED PRICE 2.36 4.59 0.68 FREE 2.66 4.99 1.37 HAWAII: PAID 0.33 0.34 0.09 REDUCED PRICE 1.64 3.20 0.49 FREE 1.94 3.60 0.99
    Day Care Homes Breakfast Tier I Tier II Lunch and Supper Tier I Tier II Supplement Tier I Tier II CONTIGUOUS STATES 1.32 0.48 2.48 1.50 0.74 0.20 ALASKA 2.11 0.75 4.02 2.43 1.20 0.33 HAWAII 1.54 0.55 2.90 1.75 0.86 0.24 1 These rates do not include the value of USDA Foods or cash-in-lieu of USDA Foods which institutions receive as additional assistance for each CACFP lunch or supper served to participants. A notice announcing the value of USDA Foods and cash-in-lieu of USDA Foods is published separately in the Federal Register. Administrative Reimbursement Rates for Sponsoring Organizations of Day Care Homes [Per home/per month rates in U.S. dollars] Initial 50 Next 150 Next 800 Each
  • additional
  • CONTIGUOUS STATES 111 85 66 58 ALASKA 180 137 107 94 HAWAII 130 99 77 68

    The changes in the national average payment rates for centers reflect a 2.97 percent increase during the 12-month period, May 2014 to May 2015, (from 247.952 in May 2014, as previously published in the Federal Register, to 255.322 in May 2015) in the food away from home series of the CPI for All Urban Consumers.

    The changes in the food service payment rates for day care homes reflect a 0.63 percent increase during the 12-month period, May 2014 to May 2015, (from 239.504 in May 2014, as previously published in the Federal Register, to 241.019 in May 2015) in the food at home series of the CPI for All Urban Consumers.

    The changes in the administrative reimbursement rates for sponsoring organizations of day care homes reflect a 0.04 percent decrease during the 12-month period, May 2014 to May 2015 (from 237.900 in May 2014, as previously published in the Federal Register, to 237.805 in May 2015) in the series for all items of the CPI for All Urban Consumers.

    The total amount of payments available to each State agency for distribution to institutions participating in CACFP is based on the rates contained in this notice.

    This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. This notice has been determined to be exempt under Executive Order 12866.

    CACFP is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.558 and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR 415.3-415.6).

    This notice has been determined to be not significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

    This notice imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping provisions that are subject to OMB review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3518).

    Authority:

    Sections 4(b)(2), 11a, 17(c) and 17(f)(3)(B) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1753(b)(2), 1759a, 1766(f)(3)(B)) and section 4(b)(1)(B) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773(b)(1)(B)).

    Dated: July 12, 2015. Audrey Rowe, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17597 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Forest Resource Coordinating Committee; Meetings AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Forest Resource Coordinating Committee (Committee) will meet via teleconference. The Committee is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. II), and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the Act) (Pub. L. 110-246). Additional information concerning the Committee, including the meeting agenda, supporting documents and minutes, can be found by visiting the Committee's Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/frcc/.

    DATES:

    The teleconference will be held on July 15, 2015 from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The meeting is subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via web and telephone conferencing. Internet access is required to participate in the web-based conferencing. For anyone who would like to attend the teleconference, please visit the Web site listed in the SUMMARY section or contact Andrea Bedell-Loucks at [email protected] for further details. 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 placed on the Committee's Web site listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrea Bedell-Loucks, Designated Federal Officer, Cooperative Forestry staff, 202-205-1190. 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. Develop one pager for Under Secretary Bonnie, and

    2. Develop the August Committee meeting agenda.

    The teleconference is open to the public. However, the public is strongly encouraged to RSVP prior to the teleconference to ensure all related documents are shared with public meeting participants. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. 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 time requests for oral comments must be sent to Laurie Schoonhoven, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 1123, Washington, DC 20250 or by email to [email protected] A summary of the meeting will be posted on the Web site listed above within 21 days after the meeting.

    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 13, 2015. Debra S. Pressman, Chief of Staff, State and Private Forestry.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17592 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Export License Services—Transfer of License Ownership, Request for a Duplicate License AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before September 15, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Mark Crace, BIS ICR Liaison, (202) 482-8093, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This collection is needed to provide services to exporters who have either lost their original license and require a duplicate, or who wish to transfer their ownership of an approved license to another party.

    II. Method of Collection

    Submitted in paper form.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0694-0126.

    Form Number(s): N/A.

    Type of Review: Regular submission extension.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 110.

    Estimated Time per Response: 16 to 66 minutes per response.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 38 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: 0.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17598 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-809] Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is amending the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe (CWP) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) to correct a ministerial error.1 The period of review is November 1, 2012, through October 31, 2013.

    1See Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 32937 (June 10, 2015) (Final Results) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    DATES:

    Effective date: July 17, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joseph Shuler or Jennifer Meek, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1293 or (202) 482-2778, respectively.

    Background

    On June 5, 2015, the Department disclosed to interested parties its calculations for the Final Results.2 On June 10, 2015, we received a timely ministerial error allegation from domestic interested parties (Allied Tube & Conduit and TMK IPSCO) regarding the Department's margin calculation for Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO).3

    2See “Final Results Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO,” dated June 3, 2015.

    3See “Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea: Ministerial Error Comments,” dated June 10, 2015.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube. The product is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.4

    4 For a complete description of the scope of the order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying the Final Results.

    Ministerial Error

    Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.224(f) define a “ministerial error” as an error “in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” We analyzed the ministerial error allegation and determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we made a ministerial error in our calculation of HYSCO's margin for the Final Results by inadvertently excluding from the comparison market program certain of HYSCO's home market sales observations.

    In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the Final Results with respect to HYSCO.5 The revised weighted-average dumping margin for HYSCO is detailed below.

    5See Memorandum from Joseph Shuler, International Trade Analyst, to James Maeder, Senior Director, Office I, “Ministerial Error Allegation in the 2012-2013 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Republic of Korea.”

    Amended Final Results

    As a result of correcting this ministerial error, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period November 1, 2012, through October 31, 2013:

    Producer/exporter Weighted-average dumping margin
  • (percent)
  • Hyundai HYSCO 0.81
    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these amended final results of review.

    For assessment purposes, HYSCO reported the name of the importer of record and the entered value for all of their sales to the United States during the period of review (POR). Accordingly, we calculated importer-specific ad valorem antidumping duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales and the total entered value of those same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

    For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by HYSCO for which it did not know were destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company or companies involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of amended final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for HYSCO will be equal to the respective weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 4.80 percent, the “all others” rate established pursuant to a court decision.6 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    6See Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Korea: Notice of Final Court Decision and Amended Final Determination, 60 FR 55833 (November 3, 1995).

    Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to these proceedings within five days of the date of publication of this notice pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    These amended final results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Actand 19 CFR 351.224(f).

    Dated: July 10, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17622 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-982] Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding its administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on utility scale wind towers (wind towers) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.

    DATES:

    Effective date: July 17, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4793.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department initiated an administrative review of the CVD order on wind towers from the PRC with respect to 50 companies for the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, based on a request by the petitioner, the Wind Tower Trade Coalition (WTTC).1 On July 1, 2015, WTTC timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of all 50 companies.2 No other party requested a review.

    1See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 18202 (April 3, 2015).

    2See Letter from the WTTC regarding “Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review” (July 1, 2015).

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review in whole or in part, if the party that requested a review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, WTTC withdrew its request for review within the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the CVD order. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review in its entirety.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess CVDs on all entries of wind towers from the PRC during the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated CVDs required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice.

    Notifications

    This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: July 10, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17621 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Amendment to the Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Program AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Solicitation of Comments; Notice of Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment to Puerto Rico Coastal Management Program.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office for Coastal Management is soliciting comments on a program change amendment to the Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Program (PRCZMP). This notice describes the opportunities for public comment on the program change.

    DATES:

    The hearing on the program amendment to the PRCMP will be held on Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 9 a.m. local time at the Environmental Agencies Building, PR-8838 Km. 6.3, Auditorium 4th Floor, El Cinco, Rio Piedras, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please send written comments to Joelle Gore, Stewardship Division Chief (Acting), NOAA Office for Coastal Management, NOS/OCM/SD, 1305 East-West Highway, 10th Floor, Room 10622, N/OCM6, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jackie Rolleri, at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The federal Coastal Zone Management Act provides incentives to encourage and assist states, commonwealths and territories to develop and implement programs to manage land and water uses which may affect coastal land and water resources. The PRCZMP was approved by NOAA in 1978. Since that time, statutory and regulatory changes have been made to the organizational structure of the land use agencies which comprise the PRCZMP, the land use authority of local governments, and permit review process. These changes are in force and being implemented as laws of the Commonwealth pursuant to the Puerto Rico Permit Process Reform Act of 2009 (Law 161), as amended by Law 151 of 2013, and pursuant to the Autonomous Municipalities Act of 1991 (Law 81). In order to demonstrate that the program continues to meet the requirements for program approval established under the Coastal Zone Management Act and its implementing regulations, the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources has submitted these changes to NOAA for approval. Copies of the proposed changes are available by navigating from the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources homepage at http://www.drna.gobierno.pr/.

    NOAA's Office for Coastal Management has determined that these changes are a program amendment. As such, NOAA is required to hold a public hearing on the amendment. The focus of the hearing is whether the PRCZMP continues to meet the requirements for program approval as specified in the Coastal Zone Management Program regulations at 15 CFR part 923. For those interested in making oral statements at the public hearing, the submission of supplemental written comments is encouraged.

    In addition to the hearing, NOAA is soliciting written comments from the public on the amendment. Written comments will be accepted before and after the public hearing through September 23, 2015.

    Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 11.419 Coastal Zone Management Program Administration Dated: July 9, 2015. Christopher C. Cartwright, Associate Assistant Administrator for Management and CFO/CAO, Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17426 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE052 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Legislative Committee will meet by teleconference.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on August 4, 2015, 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., please call NMFS-AKR-RA Conference Line 907-586-7060 (max 30).

    ADDRESSES:

    North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 306 Anchorage, AK 99501-2252.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chris Oliver, Executive Director; phone: (907) 271-2809.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Committee will discuss and develop comments on pending legislation regarding Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization or other fisheries related legislation. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at http://www.npfmc.org/.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: July 14, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17590 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Pacific Islands Region Coral Reef Ecosystems Permit Forms.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0463.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (revision and extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 5.

    Average Hours per Response: Applications, 2 hours each; appeals, 3 hours.

    Burden Hours: 13.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for revision and extension of a current information collection.

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requires, as codified under 50 CFR part 665, any person (1) fishing for, taking, retaining, or using a vessel to fish for Western Pacific coral reef ecosystem management unit species in the designated low-use Marine Protected Areas, (2) fishing for any of these species using gear not specifically allowed in the regulations, or (3) fishing for, taking, or retaining any Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa in the coral reef ecosystem regulatory area, to obtain and carry a permit. A receiving vessel owner must also have a transshipment permit for at-sea transshipment of coral reef ecosystem management unit species. The permit application form provides basic information about the permit applicant, vessel, fishing gear and method, target species, projected fishing effort, etc., for use by NMFS and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council in determining eligibility for permit issuance. The information is important for understanding the nature of the fishery and provides a link to participants. It also aids in the enforcement of Fishery Ecosystem Plan measures.

    The two forms have been combined and minor changes made.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: July 13, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17509 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE053 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public hearings.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold five public hearings and one webinar to solicit Public comments on Draft Amendment 18 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP).

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held August 3-20, 2015. For specific dates and times see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Written Public comments must be received on or before 5 p.m. EST, Friday, August 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Public document can be obtained by contacting the New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950 at (978) 465-0492 or on their Web site at www.nefmc.org.

    Meeting addresses: The meetings will be held in Portland, ME, Portsmouth, NH, New Bedford, MA, Mystic, CT, Gloucester, MA and via webinar. For specific locations, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    Public comments: Mail to John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “DEIS for Amendment 18 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP”. Comments may also be sent via fax to 978-281-9135 or submitted via email to [email protected] with “DIES for Amendment 18 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP” in the subject line.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The agendas for the following six hearings are as follows: NEMFC staff will brief the public on the northeast multispecies amendments and the contents of the DEIS prior to opening the hearing for public comments. The schedule is as follows:

    Public Hearings: Locations, Schedules, and Agendas

    1. Monday, August 3, 2015, from 6-8 p.m.; Holiday Inn by the Bay, 88 Spring Street, Portland, ME 04101; telephone: (207) 775-2311.

    2. Tuesday, August 4, 2015, from 6-8 p.m.; Best Western Plus Wynwood Hotel, 580 US Highway 1 Bypass, Portsmouth, NH 03801; telephone: (603) 436-7600.

    3. Monday, August 10, 2015, from 6-8 p.m.; Fairfield Inn & Suites, 185 MacArthur Drive, New Bedford, MA 02740; telephone: (774) 634-2000.

    4. Thursday, August 13, 2015, from 6-8 p.m.; Hyatt Place Hotel, 224 Greenmanville Avenue, Mystic, CT 06335; telephone: (860) 536-9997.

    5. Tuesday, August 18, 2015, from 6-8 p.m.; Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Annisquam River Marine Fisheries Station, 30 Emerson Ave., Gloucester, MA 01930; telephone: (978) 282-0308.

    6. Thursday, August 20, 2015, from 6-8 p.m.; Webinar hearing, register to participate https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/2899621437233775618. Call in info: Toll: +1 (702) 489-0003, Access code 211-601-302.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas Nies (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 14, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17591 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; “Fee Deficiency Submissions”

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    Agency: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

    Title: Fee Deficiency Submissions.

    OMB Control Number: 0651-0070.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular.

    Number of Respondents: 3,000.

    Average Minutes per Response: 120.

    Burden Hours: 6,000.

    Cost Burden: $517.50.

    Needs and Uses: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“Act”) was enacted into law on September 16, 2011. See Public Law 112-29, 125 Stat. 283 (2011). Under section 10(b) of the Act, eligible small entities shall receive a 50 percent fee reduction from the undiscounted fees for filing, searching, examining, issuing, appealing, and maintaining patent applications and patents. The Act further provides that micro entities shall receive a 75 percent fee reduction from the undiscounted fees for filing, searching, examining, issuing, appealing, and maintaining patent applications and patents.

    This information collection covers the submissions made by patent applicants and patentees to excuse small and micro entity fee payment errors, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 37 CFR 1.28(c) and 1.29(k). Specifically, 37 CFR 1.28(c) provides a procedure by which patent applicants and patentees may be excused for erroneous payments of fees in the small entity amount. 37 CFR 1.29(k) provides a procedure by which patent applicants and patentees may be excused for erroneous payments of fees in the micro entity amount.

    This information collection is necessary so that patent applicants and patentees may pay the balance of fees due (i.e., make a fee deficiency payment) when a fee was previously paid in error in a micro or small entity amount. The USPTO needs the information to be able to process and properly record a fee deficiency payment to avoid questions arising later either for the USPTO or for the applicant or patentee as to whether the proper fees have been paid in the application or patent. This renewal seeks to extend the authority of USPTO to collect the balance of fees due from those who may have such an outstanding balance (i.e., a fee deficiency).

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits; not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    OMB Desk Officer: Nicholas A. Fraser, email: [email protected].

    Once submitted, the request will be publicly available in electronic format through reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Further information can be obtained by:

    Email: [email protected]. Include “0651-0070 copy request” in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Marcie Lovett, Records Management Division Director, Office of the Chief Information Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before August 17, 2015 to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, via email to [email protected], or by fax to 202-395-5167, marked to the attention of Nicholas A. Fraser.

    Dated: July 10, 2015. Marcie Lovett, Records Management Division Director, USPTO Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17570 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add services to the Procurement List that will be provided by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before: 8/17/2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to provide the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following services are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

    Services Service Type: Custodial Service Service Mandatory for: U.S. Department of Defense Education Activity, Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS), Fort Bragg Community Schools, Fort Bragg, NC Mandatory Source of Supply: Chimes District of Columbia (DC), Baltimore, MD Contracting Activity: DDESS Area Service Center, Procurement Division, Peachtree City, GA Service Type: Dining Facility Attendant Service Service Mandatory for: U.S. Army, Mission and Installation Contracting Command, 1792 12th Street, Fort Riley, KS Mandatory Source of Supply: Lakeview Center, Inc., Pensacola, FL Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W6QM MICC-FT RILEY, Fort Riley, KS Service Type: Inbound Mail Management Service Service Mandatory for: Defense Finance and Accounting Service R & A, 1240 E. 9th Street, Cleveland, OH Mandatory Source of Supply: Anthony Wayne Rehabilitation Center for Handicapped and Blind, Inc., Fort Wayne, IN Contracting Activity: Defense Finance and Accounting Service Contract Services Directorate, Columbus, OH Deletions

    The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7530-01-072-2533—Paper, Mimeograph and Duplicating Mandatory Source of Supply: Louisiana Association for the Blind, Shreveport, LA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7510-01-587-3931—Refill, Pencil Lead, Bio-Based and Biodegradable Pencil 7520-01-587-3932—Pencil, Mechanical, Bio-Based and Biodegradable 7520-01-587-3933—Pencil, Mechanical, Bio-Based and Biodegradable 7520-01-587-3934—Pencil, Mechanical, Bio-Based and Biodegradable 7520-01-587-3935—Pencil, Mechanical, Bio-Based and Biodegradable 7510-01-587-3936—Refill, Pencil Lead, Bio-Based and Biodegradable Pencil Mandatory Source of Supply: San Antonio Lighthouse for the Blind, San Antonio, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7530-00-160-8476—Index Sheet Sets, Alphabetical, 9 1/2″ x 6″, Buff 7530-01-456-6079—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 50 7530-01-456-6078—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 31 7530-01-456-6077—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 26 7530-01-456-6076—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 49 7530-01-456-6075—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 47 7530-01-456-6074—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 21 7530-01-456-6073—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 48 7530-01-456-6072—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 20 7530-01-456-6071—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 28 7530-01-456-6070—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 19 7530-01-456-6069—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 30 7530-01-456-6068—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 27 7530-01-456-6067—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 29 7530-01-456-6066—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 22 7530-01-456-6065—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 25 7530-01-456-6064—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 24 7530-01-456-6063—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 1 7530-01-456-6062—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 23 7530-01-456-6061—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 18 7530-01-456-6060—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 17 7530-01-456-6059—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 43 7530-01-456-6058—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 45 7530-01-456-6057—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 46 7530-01-456-6056—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 42 7530-01-456-6055—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 44 7530-01-456-6054—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 41 7530-01-456-6053—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 34 7530-01-456-6052—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 33 7530-01-456-6051—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 37 7530-01-456-6050—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 36 7530-01-456-6049—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 40 7530-01-456-6048—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 12 7530-01-456-6047—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 35 7530-01-456-6046—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 11 7530-01-456-6045—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 15 7530-01-456-6044—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 39 7530-01-456-6043—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 10 7530-01-456-6042—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 5 7530-01-456-6041—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 38 7530-01-456-6040—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 14 7530-01-456-6039—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 32 7530-01-456-6038—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 4 7530-01-456-6037—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 13 7530-01-456-6036—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 16 7530-01-456-6034—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 6 7530-01-456-6033—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 2 7530-01-456-6032—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 9 7530-01-456-6030—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 8 7530-01-456-6028—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 3 7530-01-456-6027—Index Sheet Sets, Tab 7 7530-01-456-2264—Index Sheet Sets, Tab O 7530-01-456-2263—Index Sheet Sets, Tab P 7530-01-456-2262—Index Sheet Sets, Tab N 7530-01-456-2261—Index Sheet Sets, Tab K 7530-01-456-2260—Index Sheet Sets, Tab L 7530-01-456-2259—Index Sheet Sets, Tab M 7530-01-456-2255—Index Sheet Sets, Tab T 7530-01-456-2254—Index Sheet Sets, Tab X 7530-01-456-2253—Index Sheet Sets, Tab Y 7530-01-456-2252—Index Sheet Sets, Tab S 7530-01-456-2251—Index Sheet Sets, Tab Z 7530-01-456-2250—Index Sheet Sets, Tab V 7530-01-456-2248—Index Sheet Sets, Tab W 7530-01-456-2247—Index Sheet Sets, Tab U 7530-01-456-2246—Index Sheet Sets, Tab R 7530-01-456-2245—Index Sheet Sets, Tab Q 7530-01-452-2043—Index Sheet Sets, Tab J 7530-01-452-2042—Index Sheet Sets, Tab H 7530-01-452-2041—Index Sheet Sets, Tab I 7530-01-452-2040—Index Sheet Sets, Tab D 7530-01-452-2039—Index Sheet Sets, Tab F 7530-01-452-2038—Index Sheet Sets, Tab G 7530-01-452-2037—Index Sheet Sets, Tab E 7530-01-452-2036—Index Sheet Sets, Tab C 7530-01-452-2035—Index Sheet Sets, Tab B 7530-01-452-2034—Index Sheet Sets, Tab A Mandatory Source of Supply: Easter Seals Western and Central Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, PA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7510-01-386-2265—Pencil, Fine-Line Writing 7510-00-286-5750—Pencil, Fine-Line Writing 7510-00-286-5751—Pencil, Fine-Line Writing 7510-00-286-5755—Pencil, Fine-Line Writing Mandatory Source of Supply: Central Association for the Blind & Visually Impaired, Utica, NY, Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7520-01-424-4855—Marker, Tube Type, Permanent Ink (Colossal) (Red) 7520-01-424-4870—Marker, Tube Type, Permanent Ink (Colossal) (Green) 7520-01-424-4880—Marker, Tube Type, Permanent Ink (Colossal) (Blue) Mandatory Source of Supply: Dallas Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc., Dallas, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7530-00-NIB-0557—Folder, Classification 7530-00-NIB-0061—Folder, Classification 7530-00-NIB-0062—Folder, Classification 7530-00-NIB-0063—Folder, Classification 7530-00-NIB-0064—Folder, Classification 7530-00-NIB-0065—Folder, Classification 7530-00-NIB-0068—Folder, Classification 7530-00-NIB-0069—Folder, Classification 7530-00-NIB-0070—Folder, Classification Mandatory Source of Supply: Clovernook Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Cincinnati, OH Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7530-00-286-6983—Set, Index Sheet, 3 Hole Punched on 81/2″ side, No Tab, Buff, 81/2″ × 11″ 7530-00-286-6984—Set, Index Sheet, 3 Hole Punched on 11″ side, No Tab, Buff, 81/2″ × 11″ Mandatory Source of Supply: Louisiana Association for the Blind, Shreveport, LA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6505-01-009-2897—Mineral Oil, Lanolated 6505-00-890-2027—Mineral Oil, Lanolated Mandatory Source of Supply: Montgomery County Chapter, NYSARC, Inc., Amsterdam, NY Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, PA NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7210-01-244-9734—Mattress, Foam 7210-01-244-9735—Mattress, Foam Mandatory Source of Supply: LC Industries, Inc., Durham, NC 7210-00-052-7327—Mattress, Foam 7210-00-290-8297—Mattress, Foam 7210-00-290-8298—Mattress, Foam 7210-00-290-8299—Mattress, Foam 7210-00-290-8300—Mattress, Foam Mandatory Source of Supply: Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Winston-Salem, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, PA NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7530-00-NIB-0495—Index Tabs, Mylar Reinforced 7530-00-NIB-0494—Index Tabs, Mylar Reinforced 7530-00-NIB-0493—Index Tabs, Mylar Reinforced 7530-00-NIB-0492—Index Tabs, Mylar Reinforced 7530-00-NIB-0491—Index Tabs, Mylar Reinforced 7530-00-NIB-0490—Index Tabs, Mylar Reinforced 7530-00-NIB-0489—Index Tabs, Mylar Reinforced Mandatory Source of Supply: South Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, Corpus Christi, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7520-00-NIB-1359—Easel, Wallboard, Magnetic 7520-00-NIB-1358—Easel, Wallboard, Magnetic 7520-00-NIB-1357—Easel, Wallboard, Magnetic Mandatory Source of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc. (Seattle Lighthouse), Seattle, WA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7510-01-458-1816—Pencil, Woodcased, Camouflage 7510-01-451-9176—Pencil, Woodcased 7510-01-357-8952—Pencil, Writing, Recycled 7510-00-281-5235—Pencil, General Writing 7510-00-286-5757—Pencil, General Writing Mandatory Source of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6515-00-NIB-8020—Gloves, Exam, Nitrile, Latex-Free, Powder-Free, W/Inner Aloe coating, 3 mil (palm), Green, x-Large 6515-00-NIB-8019—Gloves, Exam, Nitrile, Latex-Free, Powder-Free, W/Inner Aloe coating, 3 mil (palm), Green, Large 6515-00-NIB-8018—Gloves, Exam, Nitrile, Latex-Free, Powder-Free, W/Inner Aloe coating, 3 mil (palm), Green, Medium 6515-00-NIB-8017—Gloves, Exam, Nitrile, Latex-Free, Powder-Free, W/Inner Aloe coating, 3 mil (palm), Green, Small 6515-00-NIB-8016—Gloves, Exam, Nitrile, Latex-Free, Powder-Free, W/Inner Aloe coating, 3 mil (palm), Green, x-Small 6515-00-NIB-7231—Gloves, Exam, Nitrile, Latex-Free, Powder-Free, W/Aloe lining, Green, x-Large 6515-00-NIB-7230—Gloves, Exam, Nitrile, Latex-Free, Powder-Free, W/Aloe lining, Green, Large 6515-00-NIB-7229—Gloves, Exam, Nitrile, Latex-Free, Powder-Free, W/Aloe lining, Green, Medium 6515-00-NIB-7228—Gloves, Exam, Nitrile, Latex-Free, Powder-Free, W/Aloe lining, Green, Small Mandatory Source of Supply: Bosma Industries for the Blind, Inc., Indianapolis, IN Contracting Activity: Department of Veterans Affairs, NAC, Hines, IL NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7510-00-NIB-0566—Custom Planners & Accessory Kit 7510-00-NIB-0568—Custom Planners & Accessory Kit 7510-00-NIB-0571—Custom Planners & Accessory Kit 7510-00-NIB-0574—Custom Planners & Accessory Kit 7510-00-NIB-0576—Custom Planners & Accessory Kit Mandatory Source of Supply: The Chicago Lighthouse for People Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired, Chicago, IL Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Household and Industrial Furniture, Arlington, VA NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7530-00-185-6752—Paper, Tabulating Machine 7530-00-144-9600—Paper, Tabulating 7530-00-144-9601—Paper, Tabulating 7530-00-144-9602—Paper, Tabulating 7530-00-144-9604—Paper, Tabulating 7530-00-185-6751—Paper, Tabulating 7530-00-185-6754—Paper, Tabulating Mandatory Source of Supply: Association for Vision Rehabilitation and Employment, Inc., Binghamton, NY Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 807—Spoon, Slotted, SS Trim MR 809—Turner, Slotted, SS Trim MR 810—Skimmer, Kitchen, SS Trim MR 814—Spatula, Wide, SS Trim MR 912—Duster, Microfiber MR 913—Duster, Microfiber, Utility Mandatory Source of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI MR 844—Clip, Bag, Mini, Magnetic MR 845—Plastic Bag Clip Mandatory Source of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc. (Seattle Lighthouse), Seattle, WA Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency, Fort Lee, VA Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17603 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions And Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds a product and service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes services from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Effective date: 8/17/2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additions

    On 6/5/2015 (80 FR 32096-32097) and 6/12/2015 (80 FR 33485-33489), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the product and service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the product and service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product and service to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and service to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following product and service are added to the Procurement List:

    Product NSN—Product Name: 7350-00-641-4518—Cup, Disposable, Paper, Squat-Style, Hot Food, White, 12 oz. Mandatory Purchase for: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind in New Orleans, Inc., New Orleans, LA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX Distribution: A-List Service Service Type: Laundry Service Service Mandatory for: US Army, Asymmetric Warfare Training Center, Fort A.P. Hill, VA Mandatory Source of Supply: Rappahannock Goodwill Industries, Inc., Fredericksburg, VA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W6QK ACC-APG DIR, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD Deletions

    On 6/12/2015 (80 FR 33485-33489), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to provide the services to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the services deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following services are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Services Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Service Mandatory for: OCIE Warehouse, Latrobe, PA Mandatory Source of Supply: Rehabilitation Center and Workshop, Inc., Greensburg, PA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W6QM MICC Ctr-Ft Dix (RC), Fort Dix, NJ Service Type: Repair of Adding Machines Service Mandatory Source of Supply: Federation Employment and Guidance Service, Inc., New York, NY Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator, Washington, DC Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Service Mandatory for: Bureau of Land Management, Imperial County, CA Mandatory Source of Supply: ACHIEVE Human Services. Inc., Yuma, AZ Contracting Activity: Office of Policy, Management, and Budget, NBC Acquisition Services Division, Washington, DC Service Type: Medical Transcription Service Service Mandatory for: 355th Medical Supply-F5HOSP, 4175 South Alamo, Bldg 400, Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ Mandatory Source of Supply: National Telecommuting Institute, Inc., Boston, MA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA7014 AFDW PK, Andrews AFB, MD Service Type: Mailroom Operation Service Service Mandatory for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Los Angeles District, Los Angeles, CA Mandatory Source of Supply: Elwyn, Inc., Aston, PA Contracting Activity: Office of Asst Secretary for Health Except National Centers, Mid- America CASU in Kansas City, Kansas City, MO Service Type: Mailroom Operation Service Service Mandatory for: Customs and Border Protection Laguna, Niguel Facilities, 24000 Avila Road, Laguna Niguel, CA Mandatory Source of Supply: Landmark Services, Inc., Santa Ana, CA Contracting Activity: Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, National Acquisition Center, Indianapolis, IN Service Type: Janitorial/Grounds and Related Service Service Mandatory for: Clearfield Federal Depot: Buildings C-6, C-7, D-5 and 2, Clearfield, UT Mandatory Source of Supply: Pioneer Adult Rehabilitation Center Davis County School District, Clearfield, UT Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator, Washington, DC Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Service Mandatory for: VA Greater Los Angeles Regional Healthcare System, Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacy, 11301 Wilshire Boulevard, Building 222, Los Angeles, CA Mandatory Source of Supply: Job Options, Inc., San Diego, CA Contracting Activity: Department of Veterans Affairs, NAC, Hines, IL Service Type: Warehousing Operations Service Service Mandatory for: O'Brien Warehouse, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park Science Center, 1020 O'Brien Drive, Menlo Park, CA Mandatory Source of Supply: Hope Services, San Jose, CA Contracting Activity: Geological Survey, Office of Acquisition and Grants—Sacramento, CA Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service, Service Mandatory For: VA Outreach Center, 9737 Haskell Avenue, Sepulveda, CA Mandatory Source of Supply: Job Options, Inc., San Diego, CA Contracting Activity: Department of Veterans Affairs, NAC, Hines, IL Service Type: Administrative Service Service Mandatory for: GSA, Tucson PBS: Tucson Field Office, 300 W. Congress, Tucson, AZ Mandatory Source of Supply: J.P. Industries, Inc., Tucson, AZ Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator, Washington, DC Service Type: Grounds Maintenance Service Service Mandatory for: National Park Service: Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Fort Mason, San Francisco, CA Contracting Activity: National Park Service, PWR Regional Contracting, San Francisco, CA Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17604 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force U.S. Air Force Partially Patent License AGENCY:

    Rome, New York, Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate, Department of the Air Force, DOD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to issue a partially exclusive patent license.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the provisions of part 404 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, which implements Public Law 96-517, as amended, the Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant Sky Tube Live, LLC, a corporation of New York, having a place of business at 1855 West Road, Oneida, New York 13421 a partially exclusive license in any right, title and interest the United States Air Force has in: U.S. Patent No. 8,732,100, issued on May 20th, 2014 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Event Detection Permitting Per Event Adjustment of False Alarm Rate.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    An exclusive license for this patent will be granted unless a written objection is received within fifteen (15) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Written objections should be sent to: Air Force Research Laboratory, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, AFRL/RIJ, 26 Electronic Parkway, Rome, New York 13441-4514. Telephone: (315) 330-2087; Facsimile (315) 330-7583.

    Henry Williams Jr., Civ, Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17582 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Inland Waterways Users Board Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open Federal advisory committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Inland Waterways Users Board (Board). This meeting is open to the public. For additional information about the Board, please visit the committee's Web site at http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/InlandWaterwaysUsersBoard.aspx.

    DATES:

    The Army Corps of Engineers, Inland Waterways Users Board will meet from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on August 12, 2015. Public registration will begin at 8:15 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Board meeting will be conducted at the Gaylord Opryland Resort Hotel & Convention Center, 2800 Opryland Drive, Nashville, TN 37214 at 615-889-1000 or www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/bnago-gaylord-opryland-resort-and-convention-center.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Mark R. Pointon, the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the committee, in writing at the Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CEIWR-GM, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868; by telephone at 703-428-6438; and by email at [email protected] Alternatively, contact Mr. Kenneth E. Lichtman, the Alternate Designated Federal Officer (ADFO), in writing at the Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CEIWR-GW, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868; by telephone at 703-428-8083; and by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The committee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The Board is chartered to provide independent advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Army on construction and rehabilitation project investments on the commercial navigation features of the inland waterways system of the United States. At this meeting, the Board will receive briefings and presentations regarding the investments, projects and status of the inland waterways system of the United States and conduct discussions and deliberations on those matters. The Board is interested in written and verbal comments from the public relevant to these purposes.

    Proposed Agenda: At this meeting the agenda will include the status of funding for inland navigation projects and studies, the status of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, the status of the Olmsted Locks and Dam Project, the Locks and Dams 2, 3, and 4 Monongahela River Project, Chickamauga Lock Project and Kentucky Lock Project, an update of the Inland Marine Transportation System (IMTS) Capital Investment Program (Capital Investment Strategy), proposed modifications of the Lock Performance Monitoring System (LPMS) Reporting Process, proposed process modifications for reporting navigation notices to maritime interests, and a retrospective of the 2010 Cumberland River High Water and Nashville Flooding.

    Availability of Materials for the Meeting. A copy of the agenda or any updates to the agenda for the August 12, 2015 meeting. The final version will be provided at the meeting. All materials will be posted to the Web site after the meeting.

    Public Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.1 65, and subject to the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Registration of members of the public who wish to attend the meeting will begin at 8:15 a.m. on the day of the meeting. Seating is limited and is on a first-to-arrive basis. Attendees will be asked to provide their name, title, affiliation, and contact information to include email address and daytime telephone number at registration. Any interested person may attend the meeting, file written comments or statements with the committee, or make verbal comments from the floor during the public meeting, at the times, and in the manner, permitted by the committee, as set forth below.

    Special Accommodations: The meeting venue is fully handicap accessible, with wheelchair access. Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting or seeking additional information about public access procedures, should contact Mr. Pointon, the committee DFO, or Mr. Lichtman, the ADFO, at the email addresses or telephone numbers listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Written Comments or Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the Board about its mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Mr. Pointon, the committee DFO, or Mr. Lichtman, the committee ADFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the addresses listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section in the following formats: Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word. The comment or statement must include the author's name, title, affiliation, address, and daytime telephone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the committee DFO or ADFO at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that they may be made available to the Board for its consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the Board until its next meeting. Please note that because the Board operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection.

    Verbal Comments: Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the Board meeting only at the time and in the manner allowed herein. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least three business (3) days in advance to the committee DFO or ADFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the addresses listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The committee DFO and ADFO will log each request to make a comment, in the order received, and determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the Board's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 15-minute period near the end of meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described above, will be allotted no more than three (3) minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the DFO and ADFO.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer .
    [FR Doc. 2015-17538 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Plan From Burlington, North Dakota Through Minot, North Dakota AGENCY:

    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District (USACE) announces the intent to prepare a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Mouse River Enhanced Flood Protection Plan (MREFPP) from Burlington, North Dakota, to a point downstream of Minot, North Dakota. The purpose of the document is to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the MREFPP.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions about the proposed action and programmatic EIS may be directed to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, ATTN: Mr. Terry J. Birkenstock, Deputy Chief, Regional Planning & Environment Division North, 180 Fifth Street East, Suite 700, St. Paul, MN 55101-1678; telephone: (651) 290-5264; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Mouse River (alternatively known as the Souris River) is approximately 435 miles long. The river begins in the southeastern portion of the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, flows south and east through north central North Dakota, and then turns north before returning to Canada in southwest Manitoba.

    Most of the annual flow on the Mouse River is attributed to snow melt and spring rains. In June 2011, heavy rains in the upstream portions of the watershed exceeded the storage capacity of upstream reservoirs already full from the April snowmelt. Flows in excess of 26,900 cubic feet per second (cfs) overwhelmed the existing Federal flood risk management projects (designed to pass 5,000 cfs from Burlington to Minot) and emergency flood fighting efforts, causing over $690 million in damages to more than 4,700 structures.

    The MREFPP Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) was developed for the North Dakota State Water Commission in February 2012. Implementation of the MREFPP is expected to extend over 20 years and involves the construction of more than 30 segments. Features of the MREFPP include 17.5 miles of new levees, 1.4 miles of channel realignment, 2 high-flow bypasses, 2.8 miles of new floodwalls, 6 bridge modifications, and 126 acres of overbank excavation. Additional details on the MREFPP PER can be found at mouseriverplan.com.

    Proposed Action

    The Souris River Joint Water Resources Board (SRJB) has proposed to move forward with the design and construction of the first three segments of the MREFPP, which includes approximately 2 miles of levees and 1,500 feet of floodwall. These segments would not, by themselves, provide independent utility for flood risk management. Features in the Burlington through Minot reach of the MREFPP are interdependent in the proposal for flood risk management and provide independent flood risk management benefits. Therefore, all effects associated with features in the Burlington through Minot reach of the MREFPP will be included in the scope of analysis evaluated through the programmatic EIS.

    Federal Involvement

    Construction of the MREFPP will require alteration of existing Federal flood risk management projects. Such alterations may be approved by the Secretary of the Army under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408). Although the Federal government will not be constructing the alterations, approval of the alterations is a Federal action and therefore requires compliance with the NEPA and other applicable environmental laws including, but not limited to, the National Historical Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Additionally, as part of the MREFPP, discharges of fill material have been proposed in waters of the United States, requiring a permit from USACE under 33 U.S.C. 1344 (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act). Issuance of a Section 404 permit is considered a Federal action, triggering NEPA, NHPA, and ESA obligations. Coordination with other Federal agencies will take place throughout the scoping process. USACE will act as the lead Federal agency for environmental compliance with the NEPA.

    Scoping

    Significant resources and issues have been and will continue to be identified through public meetings and coordination with Federal, State, and local agencies. A number of public meetings have been held to discuss the project, including meetings hosted by USACE on April 8, 2015, in Burlington and April 9, 2015 in Minot. An additional public scoping meeting will be held on August 19, 2015, at the Minot Municipal Auditorium, Room 201, 420 3rd Ave SW. in Minot, North Dakota. An open house will run from 6 p.m. until 7 p.m. central standard time and will be followed by presentations and public comment.

    Preparation of the EIS is expected to take several months. It is anticipated that the programmatic EIS for the MREFPP will be available for public review in the summer/fall of 2016.

    Dated: July 2, 2015. Daniel C. Koprowski, Colonel, Corps of Engineers, District Commander.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17670 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Intent To Conduct Restoration Planning and To Prepare a Draft Damage Assessment Restoration Plan Environmental Assessment for the Omega 707 Air Tanker Crash of May 18, 2011 at Mugu Lagoon, Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu, CA AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to section 1006 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., and Section (102)(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the regulations implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the Department of the Navy (DoN), acting through Commander Navy Region Southwest (CNRSW), and in coordination with the U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Office of Spill Prevention and Response (CDFW-OSPR), announces its intent to conduct restoration planning and to prepare a draft Damage Assessment Restoration Plan (DARP) Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Omega 707 Air Tanker Crash of May 18, 2011 at Mugu Lagoon, Naval Base Ventura County (NBVC) Point Mugu, CA.

    On May 18, 2011, a Boeing K707 aerial refueling tanker, carrying approximately 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, operated by Omega Air Inc., crashed during take‐off on Runway 21 into Mugu Lagoon at the end of Point Mugu Taxiway Alpha at NBVC Point Mugu. Spill response crews protected most of the lagoon and were able to limit crash impacts to an area of approximately 79 acres of wetlands. The crash scattered debris and different portions of the plane, scoured tracks into the marsh, and left the remaining fuselage partially buried in mudflats. A Unified Command (UC) was instituted immediately following the incident that consisted of staff from NBVC Point Mugu, CDFW-OSPR, U.S. Coast Guard, USFWS, and aircraft owner Omega Air, Inc. The UC oversaw the emergency response and spill containment debris clean-up operations.

    The natural resources trustees (Trustees) under OPA are the CNRSW, USFWS and CDFW-OSPR and are acting in accordance with the natural resources authorities provided by the OPA, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and other applicable Federal laws and regulations including the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR 300.600-300.615), the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) regulations applicable to OPA (15 CFR part 990), and the DoN Environmental Readiness Program Manual (OPNAVINST 5090.1D). USFWS and CDFW-OSPR are co-Trustees in this response, with CNRSW serving as lead Trustee. As owner and operator of the crashed plane from which the fire and release occurred, the Trustees identified Omega Air, Inc. as the Responsible Party (RP). The Trustees have coordinated with representatives of the RP on NRDA activities.

    The Trustees began the pre-assessment phase of the NRDA in accordance with 15 CFR 990.40, to determine if they had jurisdiction to pursue restoration under OPA, and, if so, whether it was appropriate to do so. During the pre-assessment phase, the Trustees collected and analyzed the following:

    1. Data reasonably expected to be necessary to make a determination of jurisdiction or a determination to conduct restoration planning;

    2. Ephemeral data; and/or

    3. Information needed to design or implement anticipated emergency restoration and/or assessment as part of the restoration planning phase.

    The NRDA regulations provide that the Trustees are to prepare a Notice of Intent to Conduct Restoration Planning (Notice) if they determine certain conditions have been met, and if they decide to quantify the injuries to natural resources and to develop a restoration plan. This Notice announces, pursuant to 15 CFR 990.44, that the Trustees, having collected and analyzed data, intend to proceed with restoration planning actions to address injuries to natural resources resulting from the crash. The purpose of this restoration planning effort is to further evaluate injuries to natural resources and services and to use that information to determine the need for, type of, and scale of compensatory restoration actions.

    Dates and Addresses: The Trustees invite and encourage Federal, State, and local agencies, American Indian tribes, and interested persons to provide written comments on this Notice and the proposed DARP EA to ensure that all relevant issues are considered. All written comments may be submitted through the point of contact listed below and must be received by August 17, 2015 to ensure they become part of the official record. Written comments or questions on this Notice and the scope of the proposed DARP EA and its process, requests for inclusion on the mailing list, and requests for copies of any documents associated with the DARP EA should be directed to: Navy Region Southwest, Attention: Ms. Deb McKay, Code N40, Pt Mugu Omega Air Tanker Crash Spill, 937 North Harbor Drive, Box 81, San Diego, CA 92132.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Navy Region Southwest, Attention: Ms. Deb McKay, Code N40, Pt Mugu Omega Air Tanker Crash Spill, 937 North Harbor Drive, Box 81, San Diego, CA 92132, Phone: 619-532-2284, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authorities. Pursuant to section 1006 of the OPA, Federal and State Trustees for natural resources are authorized to:

    1. Assess natural resource injuries resulting from a discharge of oil or the substantial threat of a discharge and response activities, and

    2. Develop and implement a plan for restoration of such injured resources. The Federal Trustees are designated pursuant to the NCP and Executive Order 12777 (Implementation of Section 311 of the FWPCA of October 18, 1972, as amended, and the OPA). State Trustees for California are designated pursuant to the NCP and the “Governor's Designation of State Natural Resource Trustees under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, the OPA, and California Health and Safety Code” § 25352(c), dated October 5, 2007.

    Determination of Jurisdiction. The Trustees have determined that impacts from the air tanker crash on May 18, 2011, and subsequent fire and oil spill into wetlands at NBVC Point Mugu require restoration planning pursuant to 15 CFR 990.44. After the crash event, the Trustees conducted impact minimization and clean up measures to protect the rest of Mugu Lagoon but injuries still occurred to the natural resources and services of the site. Therefore, a NRDA restoration planning effort is required to evaluate those injuries and to determine appropriate restoration actions.

    The Trustees have determined that they have jurisdiction to pursue restoration planning pursuant to the OPA in order to resolve liability for injuries to natural resources and services. Specifically, the Trustees have determined pursuant to 15 CFR 990.41:

    1. The crash of the aircraft resulted in a discharge of oil into and upon navigable waters of the U.S. and such occurrence constitutes an “Incident” within the meaning of 15 CFR 990.30;

    2. The Incident was not permitted pursuant to Federal, State, or local law; was not from a public vessel; and was not from an onshore facility subject to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authority Act (43 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.); and

    3. Natural resources under the trusteeship of the Trustees have been injured as a result of the Incident.

    Using information gathered since the crash, during the response, and the NRDA initiation phase, the Trustees have determined that the crash injured natural resources under the trusteeship of the Trustees. The air tanker crash and subsequent fire, oil spill, and cleanup action is known to have impacted aquatic organisms, vegetation, birds, wildlife, geologic resources, and hydrology. The incident exposed these resources to oil, metals, and contaminants of potential concern. The response use of heavy equipment to remove debris and sandbags to contain the spill also caused injury to the natural resources and services of the site. As a result of this incident, injuries to the site's natural resources and their services were observed and documented. Therefore, the Trustees have jurisdiction to pursue restoration under the OPA.

    Determination to Conduct Restoration Planning. The NRDA regulations under OPA, provide that the Trustees are to prepare a Notice if they determine certain conditions have been met, and if they decide to quantify the injuries to natural resources and to develop a restoration plan. Accordingly, the Trustees have determined, pursuant to 15 CFR 990.42(a), that:

    1. As stated above, injuries have resulted from the incident on May 18, 2011.

    2. Response actions did not address all injuries resulting from the incident to the extent that restoration would not be necessary. Although response actions were initiated soon after the spill, the nature of the incident (fire, oil spill, and physical disturbance) and the sensitivity of the environment precluded the complete prevention of injuries to natural resources. Injured natural resources may return to baseline, but interim losses of services provided by these natural resources have occurred, and will continue until resources return to baseline health/condition.

    3. Feasible primary and compensatory restoration actions exist to address injuries and lost human uses resulting from the incident. In preparation for restoration planning, the Trustees have begun to compile a list of restoration projects that could potentially be implemented to compensate for interim losses resulting from the incident. All potential restoration sites would be located within the bounds of NBVC Point Mugu and would involve construction projects to enhance the services of existing wetlands.

    The Trustees have the tools and procedures to evaluate the injuries and define the appropriate type and scale of restoration for the injured natural resources. Among the available procedures are computer modeled injury assessments; field and laboratory study of geology and sediment, plants, wildlife, water quality, hydrologic resources; as well as additional literature searches. Appropriate procedures such as these will be used to determine the extent of injury to natural resources and their services, and Habitat Equivalency Analysis will be used to determine the appropriate compensation for those injuries.

    During the restoration planning phase, the Trustees will evaluate potential projects, determine the scale of restoration actions needed to make the environment and the public whole, and release a draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan for public review and comment.

    Administrative Record. The Trustees have opened an Administrative Record (Record) in compliance with 15 CFR 990.45. The Record will include documents considered by the Trustees during the preassessment, assessment, and restoration planning phases of the NRDA performed in connection with the crash. The Record will be augmented with additional information over the course of the NRDA process. The Record is available in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, by contacting: Navy Region Southwest, Attention: Ms. Deb McKay, Code N40, Pt Mugu Omega Air Tanker Crash Spill, 937 North Harbor Drive, Box 81, San Diego, CA 92132, Phone: 619-532-2284, or [email protected].

    Dated: July 10, 2015. N.A. Hagerty-Ford, Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17568 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Annual Notice of Interest Rates of Federal Student Loans Made Under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program on or After July 1, 2013 AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.268. DATES:

    This notice is effective July 17, 2015.

    SUMMARY:

    The Chief Operating Officer for Federal Student Aid announces the interest rates for loans made under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program on or after July 1, 2015, but before July 1, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ian Foss, U.S. Department of Education, 830 First Street NE., Room 114I1, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 377-3681 or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 455(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1087e(b)), provides formulas for determining the interest rates charged to borrowers for loans made under the Direct Loan Program including: Federal Direct Subsidized Stafford Loans (Direct Subsidized Loans); Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford Loans (Direct Unsubsidized Loans); Federal Direct PLUS Loans (Direct PLUS Loans); and Federal Direct Consolidation Loans (Direct Consolidation Loans).

    Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct PLUS Loans (collectively, Direct Loans) first disbursed on or after July 1, 2013, have a fixed interest rate that is calculated based on the high yield of the 10-year Treasury notes auctioned at the final auction held before June 1 of each year, plus a statutory add-on percentage (a “margin”). Therefore, while the interest rate determination for new loans will be different from year to year, each of these loans will have a fixed interest rate for the life of the loan. In each case the calculated rate is capped by a maximum interest rate.

    The following chart contains specific information on the calculation of the interest rates for Direct Loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2015, but before July 1, 2016. We publish a separate notice containing the interest rates for Direct Loans that were made in prior years.

    Fixed-Rate Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct PLUS Loans First Disbursed on or After 7/1/2015 but Before 7/1/2016 Loan type Student grade level Cohort First disbursed on/after First disbursed before Index rate 10-Year
  • Treasury note
  • (%)
  • Margin
  • (%)
  • Fixed rate
  • (%)
  • Max. rate
  • (%)
  • Subsidized Undergraduates 7/1/2015 7/1/2016 2.237 2.05 4.29 8.25 Unsubsidized Undergraduates 7/1/2015 7/1/2016 2.237 2.05 4.29 8.25 Unsubsidized Graduate and Professional Students 7/1/2015 7/1/2016 2.237 3.60 5.84 9.50 PLUS Parents of Dependent Undergraduates 7/1/2015 7/1/2016 2.237 4.60 6.84 10.50 PLUS Graduate and Professional Students 7/1/2015 7/1/2016 2.237 4.60 6.84 10.50

    If an application for a Direct Consolidation Loan is received by the Department on or after July 1, 2013, the interest rate on that loan is the weighted average of the consolidated loans, rounded up to the nearest higher 1/8 of 1 percent. These Direct Consolidation Loans do not have an interest rate cap.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Program Authority:

    20 U.S.C. 1087, et seq.

    Dated: July 14, 2015. James W. Runcie, Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17653 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive License AGENCY:

    National Energy Technology Laboratory, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to grant an exclusive license.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) hereby gives notice that the Department of Energy (DOE) intends to grant an exclusive license to practice the inventions described and claimed in U.S. Patent Number 8,470,276, “Process for CO2 capture using a regenerable magnesium hydroxide sorbent” and in U.S. Patent Number 8,617,499, “Minimization of steam requirements and enhancement of water-gas shift reaction with warm gas temperature CO2 removal” to CogniTek Management Systems, Inc., a small business having its principal place of business in Northbrook, Illinois. The patents are owned by the United States of America, as represented by DOE. The prospective exclusive license complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

    DATES:

    Written comments, objections, or nonexclusive license applications must be received at the address listed below no later than August 3, 2015. Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, applications for nonexclusive licenses, or objections relating to the prospective exclusive license should be submitted to Jessica Sosenko, Technology Transfer Program Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940 or via facsimile to (412) 386-4183.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jessica Sosenko, Technology Transfer Program Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236; Telephone (412) 386-7417; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 209(c) of title 35 of the United States Code gives DOE the authority to grant exclusive or partially exclusive licenses in Department-owned inventions where a determination is made, among other things, that the desired practical application of the invention has not been achieved, or is not likely to be achieved expeditiously, under a nonexclusive license. The statute and implementing regulations (37 CFR 404) require that the necessary determinations be made after public notice and opportunity for filing written comments and objections.

    CogniTek Management Systems, Inc., a small business, has applied for an exclusive license to practice the inventions and has a plan for commercialization of the inventions. DOE intends to grant the license, upon a final determination in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c), unless within 15 days of publication of this notice, NETL's Technology Transfer Manager (contact information listed above), receives in writing any of the following, together with supporting documents:

    (i) A statement from any person setting forth reasons why it would not be in the best interest of the United States to grant the proposed license; or

    (ii) An application for a nonexclusive license to the invention, in which applicant states that it already has brought the invention to practical application or is likely to bring the invention to practical application expeditiously.

    The proposed license would be exclusive, subject to a license and other rights retained by the United States, and subject to a negotiated royalty. DOE will review all timely written responses to this notice, and will grant the license if, after expiration of the 15-day notice period, and after consideration of any written responses to this notice, a determination is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c) that the license is in the public interest.

    Issued: July 6, 2015. Grace M. Bochenek, Director, National Energy Technology Laboratory.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17654 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [OE Docket No. PP-412] Application for Presidential Permit; ITC Lake Erie Connector Project AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    SUMMARY:

    ITC Lake Erie Connector LLC (ITC Lake Erie) has applied for a Presidential Permit to construct, operate, maintain, and connect an electric transmission line across the United States border with Canada.

    DATES:

    Comments or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before August 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments or motions to intervene should be addressed as follows: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Lawrence (Program Office) at 202-586-5260 or via electronic mail at [email protected], Katherine Konieczny (Program Attorney) at 202-586-0503.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities at the international border of the United States for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country is prohibited in the absence of a Presidential Permit issued pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 10485, as amended by E.O. 12038.

    On May 29, 2015, ITC Lake Erie filed an application with the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability of the Department of Energy (DOE) for a Presidential Permit. ITC Lake Erie has it principal place of business in Novi, Michigan. ITC Lake Erie is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ITC Lake Erie Holdings LLC, which is, though another entity, a wholly-owned subsidiary of ITC Holdings Corp.

    ITC Lake Erie proposes to construct and operate the ITC Lake Erie Connector Project (the project), a ± 320 kilovolt (kV) high-voltage direct current (HVDC) bi-directional electric transmission line that would originate Haldimand County, Ontario, Canada, and terminate in Erie County, Pennsylvania. The proposed project facilities would be capable of transmitting up to 1000 megawatts (MW) of power.

    The U.S. portion of the proposed project would cross the U.S.-Canada border in Lake Erie as a submerged line, buried in the lake bed, and would run approximately 35.4 miles before reaching the shore on private property, west of Erie Bluffs Park. From the shore, the line would be buried underground for approximately 7.1 miles, along mostly roadway rights-of-way and terminate at the proposed Erie Converter Station. From the Erie Converter Station, a 345 kV alternating current (AC) transmission line would run approximately 1,900-3,000 feet (depending on final routing) underground and connect into the U.S. grid at the existing Erie West Substation owned by Penelec. The total length of the Project would be 72.4 miles, with the U.S. portion totaling about 42.5 miles.

    The Project would be operated in accordance with the established engineering and technical criteria of the Independent System Operator of Ontario (IESO) and the PJM Interconnection (PJM). In the U.S., the Project would be placed under operational control of PJM.

    Since the restructuring of the electric industry began, resulting in the introduction of different types of competitive entities into the marketplace, DOE has consistently expressed its policy that cross-border trade in electric energy should be subject to the same principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination that apply to transmission in interstate commerce. DOE has stated that policy in export authorizations granted to entities requesting authority to export over international transmission facilities. Specifically, DOE expects transmitting utilities owning border facilities to provide access across the border in accordance with the principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination contained in the Federal Power Act and articulated in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order No. 888 (Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶31,036 (1996)), as amended. In furtherance of this policy, DOE invites comments on whether it would be appropriate to condition any Presidential Permit issued in this proceeding on compliance with these open access principles.

    Procedural Matters: Any person may comment on this application by filing such comment at the address provided above. Any person seeking to become a party to this proceeding must file a motion to intervene at the address provided above in accordance with Rule 214 of FERC's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214). Two copies of each comment or motion to intervene should be filed with DOE on or before the date listed above.

    Additional copies of such motions to intervene also should be filed directly with: Andrew Jamieson, Counsel, ITC Holdings Corp., 27175 Energy Way, Novi, MI 48377, [email protected] AND John R. Staffier, Stunz, Davis & Staffier, P.C., 555 Twelfth Street NW., Suite 360, Washington, DC 20004, [email protected] AND Ellen S. Young, Stunz, Davis & Staffier, P.C., 555 Twelfth Street NW., Suite 360, Washington, DC 20004 [email protected].

    Before a Presidential Permit may be issued or amended, DOE must determine that the proposed action is in the public interest. In making that determination, DOE considers the environmental impacts of the proposed project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, determines the project's impact on electric reliability by ascertaining whether the proposed project would adversely affect the operation of the U.S. electric power supply system under normal and contingency conditions, and any other factors that DOE may also consider relevant to the public interest. Also, DOE must obtain the concurrences of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense before taking final action on a Presidential Permit application.

    Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, or by accessing the program Web site at http://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-policy-coordination-and-implementation/international-electricity-regulatio-2.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 13, 2015. Christopher A. Lawrence, Electricity Policy Analyst, National Electricity Delivery Division, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17655 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9021-9] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) Filed 07/06/2015 Through 07/10/2015 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

    EIS No. 20150189, Draft, NOAA, MA, Amendment 18 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 08/31/2015, Contact: John K. Bullard 978-281-9135. EIS No. 20150190, Draft, USFS, CA, Trestle Forest Health Project, Comment Period Ends: 08/31/2015, Contact: Jennifer Ebert 530-647-5382. EIS No. 20150191, Draft, USACE, TX, Surface Coal and Lignite Mining in Texas, Comment Period Ends: 09/08/2015, Contact: Darvin Messer 817-886-1744. EIS No. 20150192, Final Supplement, USN, GU, Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Military Relocation (2012 Roadmap Adjustments), Review Period Ends: 08/17/2015, Contact: Joseph A. Campbell CAPT USN 703-602-3924. EIS No. 20150193, Draft, BLM, UT, Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Area Red Cliffs National Conservation Area Draft Amendment to the St. George Field Office Resource Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 10/15/2015, Contact: Keith Rigtrup 435-865-3063. EIS No. 20150194, Draft, WAPA, CA, San Luis Transmission Project, Comment Period Ends: 08/31/2015, Contact: Donald Lash 916-353-4048. EIS No. 20150195, Final Supplement, TVA, TN, Integrated Resource Plan, Review Period Ends: 08/17/2015, Contact: Charles P. Nicholson, 865-632-3582. EIS No. 20150196, Draft Supplement, BR, CA, Bay Delta Conservation Plan/California Water Fix, Comment Period Ends: 08/31/2015, Contact: Michelle Banonis 916-930-5676. EIS No. 20150197, Final, USFS, CA, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Land Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 08/17/2015, Contact: Denise Downie 530-543-2683. Amended Notices EIS No. 20150180, Final, USFS, AZ, Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project, Review Period Ends: 08/10/2015, Contact: Erin Phelps 928-527-8240 Revision to FR Notice Published 07/02/2015; Correction to Review Period Ends 08/10/2015. EIS No. 20150182, Final, VA, CA, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center Long Range Development Plan, Review Period Ends: 08/10/2015, Contact: Robin Flanagan 415-750-2049 Revision to FR Notice Published 07/10/2015; Correction to Review Period Ends: 08/10/2015. Dated: July 14, 2015. Dawn Roberts, Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17602 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0341; FRL-9930-83-OAR] Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's Update of Two Chapters in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing that the period for providing public comments on the June 12, 2015, notice of data availability of the “Environmental Protection Agency's Update of Two Chapters in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual” is being extended by 30 days.

    DATES:

    The public comment period for the notice of data availability published June 12, 2015 (80 FR 33515) is being extended by 30 days to September 10, 2015, in order to provide the public additional time to submit comments.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments on the notice of data availability may be submitted to the EPA electronically, by mail, by facsimile or through hand delivery/courier. Please refer to the notice of data availability (80 FR 33515) for the addresses and detailed instructions. Publicly available documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0341. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. The EPA has established the official public docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0341.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions on the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual update and how to submit comments, contact Mr. Larry Sorrels, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Environmental Protection Agency, C439-02, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone number: (919) 541-5041; fax number: (919) 541-0839; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The EPA received two requests to extend the comment period on the June 12, 2015, notice of data availability of the “Environmental Protection Agency's Update of Two Chapters in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual.” Based on the evaluation of those requests and the level of interest in the notice of data availability, the EPA is extending the public comment period for an additional 30 days. The public comment period will end on September 10, 2015, rather than August 11, 2015. This will ensure that the public has sufficient time to review and comment on all of the information available, including the notice of data availability and other materials in the docket.

    Dated: July 9, 2015. Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17656 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9930-82-OAR] Request for Nominations for the 2016 Clean Air Excellence Awards Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Request for nominations for Clean Air Excellence Awards.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the competition for the 2016 Clean Air Excellence Awards Program. EPA established the Clean Air Excellence Awards Program in February 2000 to recognize outstanding and innovative efforts that support progress in achieving clean air.

    DATES:

    All submissions of entries for the Clean Air Excellence Awards Program must be postmarked by September 11, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Additional information on this awards program, including the entry form, can be found on EPA's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) Web site: http://epa.gov/air/cleanairawards/index.html. Any member of the public who wants further information may contact Ms. Catrice Jefferson, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA by telephone at (202) 564-1668 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Awards Program Notice: Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7403(a)(1) and (2) and sections 103(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), notice is hereby given that the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) announces the opening of competition for the 2016 Clean Air Excellence Awards Program (CAEAP). The intent of the program is to recognize and honor outstanding, innovative efforts that help to make progress in achieving cleaner air. The CAEAP is open to both public and private entities. Entries are limited to efforts related to air quality in the United States. There are five general award categories: (1) Clean Air Technology; (2) Community Action; (3) Education/Outreach; (4) Regulatory/Policy Innovations; and (5) Transportation Efficiency Innovations. There are also two special awards categories: (1) Thomas W. Zosel Outstanding Individual Achievement Award; and (2) Gregg Cooke Visionary Program Award. Awards are given periodically and are for recognition only.

    Entry Requirements: All applicants are asked to submit their entry on a CAEAP entry form, contained in the CAEAP Entry Package, which may be obtained from the CAAAC Web site at http://www.epa.gov/air/cleanairawards/entry.html. Applicants can also contact Ms. Catrice Jefferson, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA by telephone at (202) 564-1668 or by email at [email protected] The entry form is a simple, three-part form asking for general information on the applicant; a narrative description of the project; and three (3) independent references for the proposed entry. Applicants should also submit additional supporting documentation as necessary. Specific directions and information on filing an entry form are included in the Entry Package.

    Judging and Award Criteria: EPA staff will use a screening process, with input from outside subject experts, as needed. Members of the CAAAC will provide advice to EPA on the entries. The EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation will make the final award decisions. Entries will be judged using both general criteria and criteria specific to each individual category. These criteria are listed in the 2016 Entry Package.

    Dated July 1, 2015. Catrice Jefferson, Office of Air and Radiation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17626 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [3060-0168] Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before August 17, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the “Supplementary Information” section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0168.

    Title: Section 43.43, Reports of Proposed Changes in Depreciation Rates.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents: 24 respondents; 24 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 250 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 161, 201-205 and 218-220 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 6,000 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $919,560.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Respondents are not being asked to submit confidential information to the Commission. However, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: Section 43.43 establishes the reporting requirements for depreciation prescription purposes. Communication common carriers with annual operating revenues of $150.2 million or more that the Commission has found to be dominant must file information specified in Section 43.43 before making any change in depreciation rates applicable to their operating plant. Section 220 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also allows the Commission, in its discretion, to prescribe the form of any and all accounts, records, and memoranda to be kept by carriers subject to the Act, including the accounts, records and memoranda of the movement of traffic, as well as receipts and expenditures of moneys. Carriers are required to file four summary exhibits along with the underlying data used to generate them, and must provide the depreciation factors (i.e., life, salvage, curve shape, depreciation reserve) required to verify the calculation of the carrier's depreciation expenses and rates. Mid-sized carriers are no longer required to file theoretical reserve studies. Certain price cap incumbent LECs in certain instances may request a waiver of the depreciation rates.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17497 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Waiver of Sunshine Period Prohibition for Agenda Item on Thursday, July 16, 2015 Open Meeting July 10, 2015.

    The Federal Communications Commission previously announced its intention to hold an Open Meeting on Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. With respect only to item 1 listed below, the Commission is now waiving the sunshine period prohibition contained in Section 1.1203 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1203, until 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 15, 2015. Thus, presentations with respect to item 1 will be permitted until that time.

    Item No. Bureau Subject 1 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TITLE: Broadcast Incentive Auction Comment Public Notice Auction 1000, 1001 and 1002; Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions; Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings (AU Docket No. 14-252) (GN Docket No. 12-268) (WT Docket No. 12-269). SUMMARY: The Commission will take the next step to commencing the incentive auction in the first quarter of 2016 by considering the Procedures Public Notice, which adopts a balanced set of auction procedures that will ensure an effective, efficient, and timely auction. The Public Notice establishes and provides information on final procedures for setting the initial spectrum clearing target, qualifying to bid, and bidding in the reverse and forward auctions.

    The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to: [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

    Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from Will Wiquist, Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at www.fcc.gov/live.

    For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services, call (703) 993-3100 or go to www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17579 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC To Hold Open Commission Meeting Thursday, July 16, 2015 July 9, 2015.

    The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Thursday, July 16, 2015, which is scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC.

    Item No. Bureau Subject 1 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TITLE: Broadcast Incentive Auction Comment Public Notice Auction 1000, 1001 and 1002; Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions; Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings (AU Docket No. 14-252) (GN Docket No. 12-268) (WT Docket No. 12-269).
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will take the next step to commencing the incentive auction in the first quarter of 2016 by considering the Procedures Public Notice, which adopts a balanced set of auction procedures that will ensure an effective, efficient, and timely auction. The Public Notice establishes and provides information on final procedures for setting the initial spectrum clearing target, qualifying to bid, and bidding in the reverse and forward auctions.
  • 2 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TITLE: Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings; Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions (WT Docket No. 12-269) (GN Docket No. 12-268).
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider an Order on Reconsideration addressing petitions for reconsideration of certain aspects of the Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order.
  • 3 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TITLE: Updating Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules; Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions; Petition of DIRECTV Group, Inc. and EchoStar LLC for Expedited Rulemaking to Amend Section 1.2105(a)(2)(xi) and 1.2106(a) of the Commission's Rules and/or for Interim Conditional Waiver; Implementation of the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act and Modernization of the Commission's Competitive Bidding Rules and Procedures (WT Docket No. 14-170) (GN Docket No. 12-268) (RM-11395) (WT Docket No. 05-211).
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, Third Order on Reconsideration and a Third Report and Order that provides meaningful opportunities for small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups and women to participate in the provision of spectrum-based services, and also strengthens the Commission's rules to protect against unjust enrichment to ineligible entities.
  • 4 ENFORCEMENT TITLE: Enforcement Bureau Item.
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider an enforcement item.
  • Consent Agenda

    The Commission will consider the following subjects listed below as a consent agenda and these items will not be presented individually:

    Item No. Bureau Subject 1 MEDIA TITLE: KGAN Licensee, LLC, Application for Renewal of License of Station KGAN-TV, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review filed by Iowans For Better Local Television seeking review of a Media Bureau Order denying a petition to deny.
  • 2 MEDIA TITLE: ABC, Inc. and CBS Broadcasting, Inc., Applications for WPVI-TV and KYW-DT, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review filed by Global Radio, LLC seeking review of licenses to cover granted by the Media Bureau.
  • 3 MEDIA TITLE: Beach TV Properties, Inc., Licensee of Stations KNOV-CD, New Orleans, Louisiana; WCAY-CD, Key West, Florida; WDES-CA Destin, Florida; WPFN-CA Panama City, Florida; WPCT(TV), Panama City, Florida; and WAWD(TV), Fort Walton Beach, Florida; Beach TV of South Carolina, Inc., Licensee of Stations WGSC-CD, Murrells Inlet, South Carolina and WGSI-CD, Murrells Inlet, South Carolina.
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider an Order and consent decree concerning the renewal of television stations filed by Beach TV Properties, Inc. and Beach TV of South Carolina, Inc.
  • 4 MEDIA TITLE: NBC Telemundo License Co., for Renewal of License of Station WTVJ(TV), Miami, Florida and CBS Television Stations, Inc., for Renewal of License of Station WFOR-TV, Miami, Florida.
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review filed by the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc. seeking review of two renewals granted by the Media Bureau.
  • 5 MEDIA TITLE: Southwest FM Broadcasting Co., Inc., Application for Construction Permit for Minor Change of Station KAHM(FM), Spring Valley, Arizona.
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review filed by Kemp Communications, Inc. seeking review of a minor change application granted by the Media Bureau.
  • 6 MEDIA TITLE: Greene/Sumter Enterprise Community, Application for Construction Permit for A New Noncommercial Educational FM Radio Station, Livingston, Alabama, Cedar Ridge Fellowship of SDA; Application for Construction Permit for A New Noncommercial Educational FM Radio Station, Shoals, Florida; Maranatha Broadcasting Ministry, Inc., Application for Construction Permit for A New Noncommercial Educational FM Radio Station, Hot Springs, Arkansas; San Bernardino Community College District, Application for Construction Permit for A New Noncommercial Educational FM Radio Station, Barstow, California; and, Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ Ministries, Application for Construction Permit for A New Noncommercial Educational FM Radio Station, White Deer, Texas.
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning five Applications for Review filed by Greene/Sumter Enterprise Community, Cedar Ridge Fellowship of Seventh Day Adventists, Maranatha Broadcasting Ministry, Inc., San Bernardino Community College District), and Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ Ministries seeking review of decisions by the Media Bureau and a waiver request filed by Greene/Sumter Enterprise Community.
  • 7 MEDIA TITLE: Larlen Communications, Inc., Application for New Noncommercial Educational FM Station, Weare, Michigan.
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review filed by Larlen Communications, Inc. seeking review of a decision by the Media Bureau.
  • 8 MEDIA TITLE: WGBH Educational Foundation, Applications for Renewal of Licenses of WGBH(FM), Boston, Massachusetts, and WCRB-FM, Lowell, Massachusetts.
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review filed by the Committee for Community Access seeking review of a renewal granted by the Media Bureau.
  • 9 MEDIA TITLE: Malibu FM Emergency and Community Broadcasters, Inc., For a New Low Power FM Station at Malibu, California.
  • SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review filed by Malibu FM Emergency and Community Broadcasters, Inc. seeking review of a decision by the Media Bureau.
  • The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to: [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

    Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from Will Wiquist, Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at www.fcc.gov/live.

    For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services, call (703) 993-3100 or go to www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17499 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1063] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s). Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before September 15, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control No.: 3060-1063.

    Title: Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite (GMPCS) Authorization, Marketing and Importation Rules.

    Form No.: Not Applicable.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 19 respondents; 19 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1-24 hours per response.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The Commission has authority for this information collection pursuant to Sections 4(i), 301, 302(a), 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 303(n) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 4(i), 301, 302(a), 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 303(n) and 303(r).

    Total Annual Burden: 684 hours.

    Total Annual Cost Burden: $13,110.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general, there is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: This collection will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as an extension (no change in requirements) after this 60-day comment period has ended in order to obtain the full three year OMB clearance.

    The purpose of this information collection is to maintain OMB approval of a certification requirement for portable GMPCS transceivers to prevent interference, reduce radio-frequency (“RF”) radiation exposure risk, and make regulatory treatment of portable GMPCS transceivers consistent with treatment of similar terrestrial wireless devices, such as cellular phones.

    The Commission is requiring that applicants obtain authorization for the equipment by submitting an application and exhibits, including test data. If the Commission did not obtain such information, it would not be able to ascertain whether the equipment meets the FCC's technical standards for operation in the United States. Furthermore, the data is required to ensure that the equipment will not cause catastrophic interference to other telecommunications services that may impact the health and safety of American citizens.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17498 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10472 Gold Canyon Bank, Gold Canyon, Arizona

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Gold Canyon Bank, Gold Canyon, Arizona (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Gold Canyon Bank on April 05, 2013. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: July 14, 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17587 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Request for Additional Information

    The Commission gives notice that it has formally requested that the parties to the below listed agreement provide additional information pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 40304(d). This action prevents the agreement amendments from becoming effective as originally scheduled. Interested parties may file comments within fifteen (15) days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Agreement No.: 201227-002, -003.

    Title: Pacific Ports Operational Improvements Agreement (PPOIA).

    Parties: Maersk Line A/S; APL Co. Pte Ltd.; American President Lines, Ltd.; CMA CGM S.A. (“CMA CGM”); Cosco Container Lines Company Limited; Evergreen Line Joint Service Agreement; Hamburg-Sudamerikanische; Aliança Navegação E Logística Ltda.; Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd.; Hapag-Lloyd AG; Hapag-Loyd USA; Companhia Libra De Navegacao; Compania Libra De Navegacion Uruguay S.A.; Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd.; Nippon Yusen Kaisha Line; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.; Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd.; Zim Integrated Shipping Services; China Shipping Container Lines Co., Ltd.; China Shipping Container Lines (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd.; MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA; Matson Navigation Company, Inc.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: July 13, 2015. Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17521 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-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 August 3, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Gregory Fred Bormann, Mitchell, South Dakota; to acquire voting shares of United Bancorporation, Osseo, Wisconsin, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Farmers State Bank, Stickney, South Dakota; United Bank, Osseo, Wisconsin, Clarke County State Bank, Osceola, Iowa; Bank of Poynette, Poynette, Wisconsin; Cambridge State Bank, Cambridge, Wisconsin; and Lincoln Community Bank, Merrill, Wisconsin.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 14, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17589 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Notice of Meeting