Federal Register Vol. 80, No.152,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 152 (August 7, 2015)

Page Range47399-47828
FR Document

80_FR_152
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 47528 - Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science BoardPDF
80 FR 47489 - Farm Credit Administration Board; Sunshine Act; Regular MeetingPDF
80 FR 47546 - In the Matter of Solar Acquisition Corp., Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 47541 - In the Matter of PDK Energy, Inc.; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 47453 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 47561 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project CommitteePDF
80 FR 47490 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
80 FR 47490 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 47529 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 47491 - Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs; Membership and Meeting Announcement for the Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory TestsPDF
80 FR 47514 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Joint Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the West of Devers Upgrade Project, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, CAPDF
80 FR 47517 - United States and State of New York v. Twin America, LLC, et al.; Public Comment and Response on Proposed Final JudgmentPDF
80 FR 47504 - Texas; Amendment No. 9 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
80 FR 47503 - Texas; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
80 FR 47557 - Regional Rail Holdings, LLC-Acquisition of Control Exemption-Regional Rail, LLCPDF
80 FR 47502 - Texas; Amendment No. 10 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
80 FR 47504 - Texas; Amendment No. 11 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
80 FR 47503 - New Jersey; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 47504 - Louisiana; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
80 FR 47493 - Request for Quality Metrics; Notice of Draft Guidance Availability and Public Meeting; Request for Comments; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 47462 - Authorization of Production Activity; Foreign-Trade Subzone 167B; Polaris Industries, Inc. (Spark-Ignition Internal Combustion Engines); Osceola, WisconsinPDF
80 FR 47469 - Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper ReviewPDF
80 FR 47463 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the United Arab Emirates: Negative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
80 FR 47464 - Xanthan Gum From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 47467 - Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 47467 - Chloropicrin From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
80 FR 47563 - Agency Information Collection-Clarification of a Notice of Disagreement Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 47563 - Proposed Information Collection: Income, Net Worth and Employment Statement (in Support of Claim for Total Disability Benefits) and Application for PensionPDF
80 FR 47554 - Notice of Intent To Release Certain Properties From all Terms, Conditions, Reservations and Restrictions of a Quitclaim Deed Agreement Between the City of Zephyrhills and the Federal Aviation Administration for the Zephyrhills Municipal Airport, Zephyrhills, FLPDF
80 FR 47515 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Feasibility Report for the Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation, Shasta and Tehama Counties, CaliforniaPDF
80 FR 47493 - Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure CohortPDF
80 FR 47555 - Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming Model Year 2006 Ferrari 612 Scagletti Passenger Cars Manufactured Before September 1, 2006 Are Eligible for ImportationPDF
80 FR 47510 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Enhancement of Survival Permit Application; Greater Sage-Grouse Candidate Conservation Agreement With Assurances for Smith Creek Ranch LTDPDF
80 FR 47482 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Assessing the Role of Noncognitive and School Environmental Factors in Students' Transitions to High School in New MexicoPDF
80 FR 47494 - Notice of Service Delivery Area Designation for the Koi Nation of Northern California Formerly Known as the Lower Lake RancheriaPDF
80 FR 47405 - Liberalization of Certain Documentary Evidence Required as Proof of Exportation on Drawback ClaimsPDF
80 FR 47515 - Notice of Public Meetings: Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, NevadaPDF
80 FR 47513 - Filing of Plats of Survey: CaliforniaPDF
80 FR 47450 - Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 47451 - Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 47553 - Modifications to the Disability Determination Procedures; Extension of Testing of Some Disability Redesign FeaturesPDF
80 FR 47399 - Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc., Models BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 Series Airplanes; Side Stick Controllers: Pilot Strength, Pilot Control Authority, and Pilot ControlPDF
80 FR 47400 - Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc., Models BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 Series Airplanes; Electronic Flight Control System: Control Surface Awareness and Mode AnnunciationPDF
80 FR 47527 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Statement of Recovery FormsPDF
80 FR 47558 - Importation of Distilled Spirits, Wine, Beer, Tobacco Products, Processed Tobacco, and Cigarette Papers and Tubes; Availability of Pilot Program and Filing Instructions To Test the Collection of Import Data for Implementation of the International Trade Data SystemPDF
80 FR 47452 - Energy Answers Arecibo, LLC: Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Notice of a Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 47408 - Establishment of the Squaw Valley-Miramonte Viticultural AreaPDF
80 FR 47555 - Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 47454 - Privacy Act of 1974, New System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 47457 - Privacy Act of 1974; Amended System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 47500 - National Eye Institute; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 47557 - Nebraska, Kansas & Colorado Railway, L.L.C.-Abandonment Exemption-in Decatur, Norton, and Phillips Counties, Kan., and Harlan County, Neb.PDF
80 FR 47479 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 47490 - Notice of Agreement FiledPDF
80 FR 47471 - Marine Mammals; File No. 18903PDF
80 FR 47534 - Special Nuclear Material Doorway MonitorsPDF
80 FR 47481 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Student Assistance General Provisions-Student Right-to-Know (SRK)PDF
80 FR 47481 - International Resource Information System (IRIS); Title; OMB Number; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 47489 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 47474 - Procurement List; AdditionsPDF
80 FR 47475 - Procurement List Proposed DeletionPDF
80 FR 47500 - National Cancer Institute: Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 47489 - Federal Advisory Committee Act; Downloadable Security Technology Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 47516 - Economic Impact of Trade Agreements Implemented Under Trade Authorities Procedures, 2016 ReportPDF
80 FR 47539 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 47540 - Change in Postal RatesPDF
80 FR 47538 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 47537 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 47474 - Marine Mammals; File No. 15471-02PDF
80 FR 47528 - Arts Advisory Panel MeetingsPDF
80 FR 47429 - Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule Proposed Parental Consent Method; Jest8 Limited, Trading as Riyo, Application for Approval of Parental Consent MethodPDF
80 FR 47552 - South Dakota Disaster #SD-00068PDF
80 FR 47486 - Malacha Hydro Limited Partnership and Juniper Ridge Ranches, Inc.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
80 FR 47485 - Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County; Notice of Application and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
80 FR 47482 - Nittany Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 47487 - Comanche Trail Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed San Elizario Crossing Project; Request for Comments on Environmental IssuesPDF
80 FR 47483 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 47493 - Modified Risk Tobacco Product Applications: Applications for 10 Products Submitted by Swedish Match North America Inc.; Reopening of Comment Period; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 47502 - Advisory Committee for Women's Services (ACWS); Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 47502 - Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 47501 - Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 47562 - Publication of Wait-Times for the Department for the Veterans Choice ProgramPDF
80 FR 47554 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Insitu, Inc.PDF
80 FR 47552 - Vermont Disaster #VT-00016PDF
80 FR 47553 - Louisiana Disaster #LA-00054PDF
80 FR 47553 - National Women's Business Council; Quarterly Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 47529 - Exelon Generation Company, LLC;Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1PDF
80 FR 47533 - NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC; Seabrook Station, Unit 1PDF
80 FR 47532 - Southern California Edison;San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3PDF
80 FR 47450 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 47451 - Inviting Rural Business Development Grant Program Applications for Grants To Provide Technical Assistance for Rural Transportation SystemsPDF
80 FR 47453 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Arizona Advisory Committee To Receive Opinion and Perspective From Members of the Community Regarding Crime Reduction, Police Training, and Police Community RelationsPDF
80 FR 47453 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Arizona Advisory Committee To Receive Information From Police Agencies and Persons Involved in the Administration of Justice Regarding Police Community RelationsPDF
80 FR 47477 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0096, Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting RequirementsPDF
80 FR 47476 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0085, Rule 50.50 End-User Notification of Non-Cleared SwapsPDF
80 FR 47511 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments; USA National Phenology Network-The Nature's Notebook Plant and Animal Observing ProgramPDF
80 FR 47541 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
80 FR 47535 - Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Program; Premium Changes and Open SeasonPDF
80 FR 47541 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
80 FR 47505 - Office for Interoperability and Compatibility Seeks Nominations for the Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program (P25 CAP) Advisory PanelPDF
80 FR 47470 - Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC); Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 47475 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection, Comment Request, Foreign Board of Trade RegistrationPDF
80 FR 47504 - The Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory CouncilPDF
80 FR 47509 - Mortgage and Loan Insurance Programs Under the National Housing Act-Debenture Interest RatesPDF
80 FR 47478 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent to Renew Collection Number 3038-0079, Conflict of Interest Policies and Procedures by Swap Dealers and Major Swap ParticipantsPDF
80 FR 47525 - Workforce Information Advisory CouncilPDF
80 FR 47512 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments: National Spatial Data Infrastructure Cooperative Agreements Program (NSDI CAP)PDF
80 FR 47550 - Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940PDF
80 FR 47541 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC; Notice of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Disruptive Trading PracticesPDF
80 FR 47546 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change to Require an Indicator When a TRACE Report Does Not Reflect a Commission or Mark-Up/Mark-DownPDF
80 FR 47490 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 47501 - Workshop on Alternative Approaches for Identifying Acute Systemic Toxicity: Moving From Research to Regulatory Testing; Notice of Public Meeting; Registration InformationPDF
80 FR 47410 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Galveston, TXPDF
80 FR 47480 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 47448 - Petition for Reconsideration of Action in a Rulemaking ProceedingPDF
80 FR 47411 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River at Portland, ORPDF
80 FR 47480 - Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 47430 - Guidance Under Section 529A: Qualifies ABLE Programs; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 47562 - Notice of Establishment of Commission on CarePDF
80 FR 47562 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 47462 - Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India: Final Results of Expedited Second Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty OrderPDF
80 FR 47430 - Revised Interpretation of Clean Water Act Tribal ProvisionPDF
80 FR 47441 - Trichloroethylene (TCE); Significant New Use Rule; TCE in Certain Consumer ProductsPDF
80 FR 47418 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 4(d) Rule for the Georgetown SalamanderPDF
80 FR 47402 - Russian Sanctions: Addition to the Entity List To Prevent Violations of Russian Industry Sector SanctionsPDF
80 FR 47411 - Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program: Pandemic Influenza Countermeasures Injury TablePDF
80 FR 47507 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
80 FR 47472 - Notice of Fee Calculations for Special Use PermitsPDF
80 FR 47565 - Occupational Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium CompoundsPDF

Issue

80 152 Friday, August 7, 2015 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

See

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

See

Rural Utilities Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47450 2015-19406
Alcohol Tobacco Tax Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau RULES Viticultural Areas; Establishments: Squaw Valley-Miramonte, 47408-47410 2015-19454 NOTICES Importation of Distilled Spirits, Wine, Beer, Tobacco Products, Processed Tobacco, and Cigarette Papers and Tubes, etc., 47558-47561 2015-19456 Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Proposed Final Judgments: United States and State of New York v. Twin America, LLC, et al., 47517-47525 2015-19495 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests, 47491-47492 2015-19498 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Arizona Advisory Committee, 47453-47454 2015-19403 2015-19404 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 47453 2015-19541 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Galveston, TX, 47410-47411 2015-19377 Willamette River at Portland, OR, 47411 2015-19373 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 47454-47462 2015-19451 2015-19452
Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 47474-47475 2015-19439 2015-19440 Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47479-47480 2015-19448 Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, 47477-47478 2015-19402 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Conflict of Interest Policies and Procedures by Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 47478-47479 2015-19387 End-User Notification of Non-Cleared Swaps, 47476-47477 2015-19401 Foreign Board of Trade Registration, 47475-47476 2015-19394 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47480 2015-19371 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47480-47481 2015-19376 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Assessing the Role of Noncognitive and School Environmental Factors in Students' Transitions to High School in New Mexico, 47482 2015-19468 International Resource Information System; Correction, 47481 2015-19442 Student Assistance General Provisions: Student Right-to-Know, 47481-47482 2015-19443 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Workforce Information Advisory Council, 47525-47526 2015-19385 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency PROPOSED RULES Revised Interpretation of Clean Water Act Tribal Provision, 47430-47441 2015-19351 Significant New Uses: Trichloroethylene; Certain Consumer Products, 47441-47448 2015-19348 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Weekly Receipt; Availability, 47489 2015-19441 Farm Credit Farm Credit Administration NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 47489 2015-19578 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc., Models BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 Series Airplanes; Electronic Flight Control System: Control Surface Awareness and Mode Annunciation, 47400-47402 2015-19458 Bombardier Inc., Models BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 Series Airplanes; Side Stick Controllers: Pilot Strength, Pilot Control Authority, and Pilot Control, 47399-47400 2015-19459 NOTICES Petitions for Exemptions; Summaries: Insitu, Inc., 47554 2015-19413 Property Release: Zephyrhills Municipal Airport, Zephyrhills, FL, 47554-47555 2015-19473 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Petitions for Reconsideration of Actions in Rulemaking Proceedings, 47448-47449 2015-19374 NOTICES Meetings: Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee, 47489-47490 2015-19437 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 47490 2015-19504 2015-19505 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Major Disaster Declarations: Louisiana; Amendment No. 1, 47504 2015-19488 Texas; Amendment No. 10, 47502-47503 2015-19491 Texas; Amendment No. 11, 47504 2015-19490 Texas; Amendment No. 8, 47503 2015-19493 Texas; Amendment No. 9, 47504 2015-19494 Major Disasters and Related Determinations: New Jersey, 47503 2015-19489 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Malacha Hydro Limited Partnership and Juniper Ridge Ranches, Inc., 47486-47487 2015-19423 Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, 47485-47486 2015-19422 Combined Filings, 47483-47485 2015-19419 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Proposed San Elizario Crossing Project, Comanche Trail Pipeline, LLC, 47487-47489 2015-19420 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Nittany Energy, LLC, 47482-47483 2015-19421 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 47490 2015-19447 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 47490-47491 2015-19380 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission PROPOSED RULES Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule Proposed Parental Consent Method: Jest8 Limited, Trading as Riyo, Application for Approval of Parental Consent Method, 47429-47430 2015-19425 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 4(d) Rule for the Georgetown Salamander, 47418-47428 2015-19335 NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Greater Sage-Grouse Candidate Conservation Agreement With Assurances for Smith Creek Ranch LTD, Enhancement of Survival Permit Applications, 47510-47511 2015-19469 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Meetings: Request for Quality Metrics; Guidance; Correction, 47493 2015-19487 Modified Risk Tobacco Product Applications: 10 Products Submitted by Swedish Match North America Inc.; Correction, 47493 2015-19418 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Activity Authorizations: Foreign-Trade Subzone 167B, Polaris Industries, Inc., Osceola, WI, 47462 2015-19485 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory Committee, 47450-47451 2015-19461 2015-19462 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Spatial Data Infrastructure Cooperative Agreements Program (NSDI CAP), 47512-47513 2015-19384 USA National Phenology Network—The Nature's Notebook Plant and Animal Observing Program, 47511-47512 2015-19400 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

RULES Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program: Pandemic Influenza Countermeasures Injury Table, 47411-47418 2015-19228 NOTICES Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort, 47493-47494 2015-19471
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

NOTICES Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council Quarterly Membership Update, 47504-47505 2015-19393 Requests for Nominations: Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program Advisory Panel, 47505-47506 2015-19396
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Federal Properties Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless, 47507-47508 2015-19216 Mortgage and Loan Insurance Programs; National Housing Act: Debenture Interest Rates, 47509-47510 2015-19391 Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES Service Delivery Area Designations: Koi Nation of Northern California Formerly Known as the Lower Lake Rancheria, 47494-47500 2015-19467 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Russian Sanctions: Addition to the Entity List To Prevent Violations of Russian Industry Sector Sanctions, 47402-47405 2015-19274 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Geological Survey

See

Land Management Bureau

See

Reclamation Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Guidance Under Section 529A: Qualifies ABLE Programs; Correction, 47430 2015-19369 NOTICES Meetings: Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee, 47561-47562 2015-19514 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 47462-47463 2015-19354 Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China, 47469-47470 2015-19484 Certain Pasta From Italy, 47467-47469 2015-19481 Chloropicrin From the People's Republic of China, 47467 2015-19480 Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the United Arab Emirates, 47463-47464 2015-19483 Xanthan Gum From the People's Republic of China, 47464-47466 2015-19482 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Economic Impact of Trade Agreements Implemented Under Trade Authorities Procedures, 2016 Report, 47516-47517 2015-19436 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Statement of Recovery Forms, 47527 2015-19457
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: West of Devers Upgrade Project, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, CA, 47514 2015-19497 Meetings: Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, Nevada, 47515 2015-19464 Plats of Survey: California, 47513 2015-19463 National Endowment for the Arts National Endowment for the Arts NOTICES Meetings: Arts Advisory Panel, 47528 2015-19426 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

National Endowment for the Arts

National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47555 2015-19453 Petitions To Import Nonconforming Vehicles: Model Year 2006 Ferrari 612 Scagletti Passenger Cars, 47555-47557 2015-19470 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Alternative Approaches for Identifying Acute Systemic Toxicity-Moving From Research to Regulatory Testing; Workshop, 47501 2015-19379 National Cancer Institute, 47500-47501 2015-19438 National Eye Institute, 47500 2015-19450 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Fee Calculations for Special Use Permits, 47472-47474 2015-19121 Meetings: Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 47470-47471 2015-19395 Permits: Marine Mammals; File No. 15471-02, 47474 2015-19431 Marine Mammals; File No. 18903, 47471 2015-19446 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 47528-47529 2015-19583 National Transportation National Transportation Safety Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 47529 2015-19502 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Director's Decisions: Southern California Edison, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, 47532-47533 2015-19407 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Seabrook Station, Unit 1, 47533-47534 2015-19408 Guidance: Special Nuclear Material Doorway Monitors, 47534-47535 2015-19445 License Amendment Applications: Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 47529-47532 2015-19409 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration PROPOSED RULES Occupational Exposure to Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds, 47566-47828 2015-17596 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Program; Premium Changes and Open Season, 47535-47537 2015-19398 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 47537-47540 2015-19388 2015-19389 2015-19390 2015-19432 2015-19433 2015-19435 Postal Rates; Changes, 47540-47541 2015-19434 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service Agreement, 47541 2015-19399 Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreements, 47541 2015-19397 Reclamation Reclamation Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation, Shasta and Tehama Counties, CA, 47515-47516 2015-19472 Rural Business Rural Business-Cooperative Service NOTICES Funding Opportunities: Grants to Provide Technical Assistance for Rural Transportation Systems, 47451 2015-19405 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Energy Answers Arecibo, LLC, 47452-47453 2015-19455 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications for Deregistration Under the Investment Company Act, 47550-47552 2015-19383 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC, 47541-47546 2015-19382 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 47546-47550 2015-19381 Trading Suspension Orders: PDK Energy, Inc., 47541 2015-19569 Solar Acquisition Corp., 47546 2015-19572 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Louisiana, 47553 2015-19411 South Dakota, 47552 2015-19424 Vermont, 47552-47553 2015-19412 Meetings: National Womens Business Council, 47553 2015-19410 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Disability Determination Procedures: Extension of Testing of Some Disability Redesign Features, 47553-47554 2015-19460 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee for Womens Services, 47502 2015-19417 Center for Substance Abuse Prevention National Advisory Council, 47501-47502 2015-19415 2015-19416 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: Nebraska, Kansas and Colorado Railway, LLC, Decatur, Norton, and Phillips Counties, KS, and Harlan County, NE, 47557-47558 2015-19449 Acquisition of Control Exemptions: Regional Rail Holdings, LLC; Regional Rail, LLC, 47557 2015-19492 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

Treasury Treasury Department See

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

See

Internal Revenue Service

RULES Liberalization of Certain Documentary Evidence Required as Proof of Exportation on Drawback Claims, 47405-47407 2015-19466 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47562 2015-19360
Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection RULES Liberalization of Certain Documentary Evidence Required as Proof of Exportation on Drawback Claims, 47405-47407 2015-19466 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Clarification of a Notice of Disagreement, 47563 2015-19479 Income, Net Worth and Employment Statement (In Support of Claim for Total Disability Benefits) and Application for Pension, 47563-47564 2015-19478 Committee Establishments: Commission on Care, 47562 2015-19363 Wait-Times for the Veterans Choice Program, 47562-47563 2015-19414 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Labor Department, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 47566-47828 2015-17596 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.

80 152 Friday, August 7, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2015-2567; Special Conditions No. 25-588-SC] Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc., Models BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 Series Airplanes; Side Stick Controllers: Pilot Strength, Pilot Control Authority, and Pilot Control AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Bombardier Inc. Models BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 series airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. This design feature is side stick controllers for pitch and roll control instead of conventional wheels and columns. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Bombardier Inc. on August 7, 2015. We must receive your comments by September 21, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-2567 using any of the following methods:

Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joe Jacobsen, FAA, Airplane and Flightcrew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2011; facsimile 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

Bombardier Inc. located in Montreal, Canada, applied to Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) on January 7, 2012, and May 30, 2012, for two amended type certificates in the transport airplane category for two new airplane models designated as the BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13. The BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes are 19-passenger, twin-engine, ultra long-range large airplanes targeting the executive interior business jet market. These airplanes share an identical supplier base and significant common design elements.

The BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes will use side stick controllers for pitch and roll control. Regulatory requirements pertaining to conventional wheel and column, such as pilot strength and controllability, are not directly applicable for the side stick. In addition, pilot control authority may be uncertain because the side sticks are not mechanically interconnected as with conventional wheel and column controls.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Bombardier Inc. must show that the BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25 as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-138 except for Amendment 25-137.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Feature

The BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: Side stick controllers for pitch and roll control, which are not mechanically interconnected as with conventional wheel and column controls. These airplanes also have a fly-by-wire electronic flight control system. This system provides an electronic interface between the pilot's flight controls and the flight control surfaces for both normal and failure states, and it generates the actual surface commands that provide for stability augmentation and control about all three airplane axes. In addition, pilot control authority may be uncertain, because the side sticks are not mechanically interconnected as with conventional wheel and column controls.

Discussion

Current FAA regulations do not specifically address the use of side stick controllers for pitch and roll control. The unique features of the side stick must therefore be demonstrated through flight and simulator tests to have suitable handling and control characteristics when considering the following:

1. The handling qualities tasks/requirements of the BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes special conditions and other part 25 stability, control, and maneuverability requirements, including the effects of turbulence.

2. General ergonomics: Arm rest comfort and support, local freedom of movement, displacement angle suitability, and axis harmony.

3. Inadvertent input in turbulence.

4. Inadvertent pitch-roll cross talk.

These special conditions elaborate on these requirements and contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

The FAA Handling Qualities Rating Method (HQRM) in appendix 5 of Advisory Circular 25-7C, “Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes,” may be used to show compliance.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Bombardier Inc. Models BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 series airplanes. Should Bombardier Inc. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on two model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Bombardier Inc. Models BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 series airplanes. In the absence of specific requirements for side stick controllers, the following apply:

1. Pilot strength: In lieu of the “strength of pilots” limits shown in § 25.143(d) for pitch and roll, and in lieu of specific pitch force requirement of §§ 25.143(i)(2), 25.145(b), and 25.175(d), Bombardier must show that the temporary and maximum prolonged force levels for the side stick controllers are suitable for all expected operating conditions and configurations, whether normal or non-normal.

2. Pilot control authority: The electronic side stick controller coupling design must provide for corrective and/or overriding control inputs by either pilot with no unsafe characteristics. Annunciation of the controller status must be provided and must not be confusing to the flightcrew.

3. Pilot control: Bombardier must show by flight tests that the use of side stick controllers does not produce unsuitable pilot-in-the-loop control characteristics when considering precision path control/tasks and turbulence. In addition, pitch and roll control force and displacement sensitivity must be compatible, so that normal inputs on one control axis will not cause significant unintentional inputs on the other.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 17, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-19459 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2015-2566; Special Conditions No. 25-587-SC] Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc., Models BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 Series Airplanes; Electronic Flight Control System: Control Surface Awareness and Mode Annunciation AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Bombardier Inc. Models BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 series airplanes. These airplanes will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. These design features are a fly-by-wire electronic flight control system (EFCS) and no direct coupling from the flight deck controller to the control surface. As a result, the pilot is not aware of the actual control surface position. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for these design features. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Bombardier Inc. on August 7, 2015. We must receive your comments by September 21, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-2566 using any of the following methods:

Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joe Jacobsen, FAA, Airplane and Flightcrew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2011; facsimile 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

Bombardier Inc. located in Montreal, Canada, applied to Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) on January 7, 2012, and May 30, 2012, for two amended type certificates in the transport airplane category for two new airplane models designated as the BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13. These airplanes are 19-passenger, twin-engine, ultra long-range large airplanes targeting the executive interior business jet market. They share an identical supplier base and significant common design elements including a fly-by-wire electronic flight control system (EFCS).

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Bombardier Inc. must show that the BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25 as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-138 except for Amendment 25-137.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design features, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: A fly-by-wire EFCS and no direct coupling from the flight deck controller to the control surface. As a result, the pilot is not aware of the actual control surface position as envisioned under current airworthiness standards.

Discussion

These special conditions require that the flightcrew receive a suitable flight control position annunciation when a flight condition exists in which nearly full surface authority (not crew-commanded) is being used. Suitability of such a display must take into account that some pilot-demanded maneuvers (e.g., rapid roll) are necessarily associated with intended full performance, which may saturate the surface. Therefore, simple alerting systems function in both intended and unexpected control-limiting situations. As a result, they must be properly balanced between providing necessary crew awareness and being a potential nuisance to the flightcrew. A monitoring system that compares airplane motion and surface deflection with the demand of the pilot side-stick controller could help reduce nuisance alerting.

These special conditions also address flight control system mode annunciation. Suitable mode annunciation must be provided to the flightcrew for events that significantly change the operating mode of the system but do not merit the classic “failure warning.”

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Bombardier Models BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 series airplanes. Should Bombardier Inc. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design features, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on two model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Bombardier Inc. Models BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 series airplanes.

1. In addition to the requirements of §§ 25.143, 25.671, and 25.672, the following requirements apply:

a. The system design must ensure that the flightcrew is made suitably aware whenever the primary control means nears the limit of control authority.

Note: The term “suitably aware” indicates annunciations provided to the flightcrew are appropriately balanced between nuisance and that necessary for crew awareness.

b. If the design of the flight control system has multiple modes of operation, a means must be provided to indicate to the flightcrew any mode that significantly changes or degrades the normal handling or operational characteristics of the airplane.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 17, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-19458 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Parts 744 and 746 [Docket No. 150610514-5514-01] RIN 0694-AG66 Russian Sanctions: Addition to the Entity List To Prevent Violations of Russian Industry Sector Sanctions AGENCY:

Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to further implement U.S. sanctions on certain Russian energy projects. Specifically, in this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends the EAR by adding a Russian oil and gas field, the Yuzhno-Kirinskoye Field located in the Sea of Okhotsk, to the Entity List. This Russian field is reported to contain substantial reserves of oil in addition to reserves of gas. The U.S. Government has determined, therefore, that exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR to this Russian field by any person without first obtaining a BIS license present an unacceptable risk of use in, or diversion to, the activities specified in the Russian industry sector sanctions. Thus, as part of the BIS “is informed” process, this final rule adds this Russian field to the Entity List to further implement the Russian industry sector sanctions. This Russian field will be listed on the Entity List under the destination of Russia. This final rule clarifies the introductory text of the Entity List to specify that the embargoes and other special controls part of the EAR is also used to add entities to the Entity List. Lastly, this final rule makes a change to the Russian industry sector sanctions by clarifying the additional prohibition on those informed by BIS also includes end-uses that are within the scope of the Russian Industry sector sanctions.

DATES:

This rule is effective August 7, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For this Entity List-related change, contact the Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-5991, Fax: (202) 482-3911, Email: [email protected] For the Russian industry sector sanctions referred to in this rule, contact Eileen Albanese, Director, Office of National Security and Technology Transfer Controls, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-0092, Fax: (202) 482-482-3355, Email: [email protected] For emails, include “Russia” in the subject line.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

This final rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to further implement U.S. sanctions on certain Russian energy projects. Specifically, in this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends the EAR by adding a Russian oil and gas field, the Yuzhno-Kirinskoye Field located in the Sea of Okhotsk, to the Entity List.

This Russian field is reported to contain substantial reserves of oil in addition to reserves of gas. The U.S. Government has determined, therefore, that exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR to this Russian field by any person without first obtaining a BIS license present an unacceptable risk of use in, or diversion to, the activities specified in the Russian industry sector sanctions. Thus, as part of the BIS “is informed” process, this final rule adds this Russian field to the Entity List to further implement the Russian industry sector sanctions. This Russian field will be listed on the Entity List under the destination of Russia.

Entity List

The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744) identifies entities and other persons reasonably believed to be involved, or to pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved, in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The EAR imposes additional licensing requirements on, and limits the availability of most license exceptions for, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to those listed. The “license review policy” for each listed entity or other person is identified in the License Review Policy column on the Entity List and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the Federal Register notice adding entities or other persons to the Entity List. BIS places entities and other persons on the Entity List pursuant to sections of part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and part 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR.

The ERC, composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy, and, where appropriate, the Treasury, rules on additions to, removals from, and other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.

Addition to the Entity List Consistent With Executive Order 13662

Under § 746.5(a)(2), BIS in this final rule is adding a Russian oil and gas field to the Entity List and informing the public of a license requirement for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of any item subject to the EAR to that location. This Russian field is added based on being the site of activities that are described in Executive Order 13662 (79 FR 16169), Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, issued by the President on March 20, 2014. This Order expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660 of March 6, 2014 and Executive Order 13661 of March 16, 2014. Specifically, Executive Order 13662 expanded the scope to include sectors of the Russian Federation's economy as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, such as financial services, energy, metals and mining, engineering, and defense and related materiel. The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), pursuant to Executive Order 13662 and on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury, has designated certain entities operating in these sectors.

The Yuzhno-Kirinskoye Field is being added to the Entity List because it is reported to contain substantial reserves of oil. Consequently, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR to this Russian oil and gas field by any person without first obtaining a BIS license has been determined by the U.S. Government to present an unacceptable risk of use in, or diversion to, the activities specified in paragraph (a)(1) of § 746.5, namely exploration for, or production of, oil or gas in Russian deepwater (greater than 500 feet) locations. Therefore, a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR is warranted.

License applications for such transactions will be reviewed with a presumption of denial because such exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) are for use directly or indirectly in exploration or production from a deepwater (greater than 500 feet) project in Russia that has the potential to produce oil. In addition, no license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to the field being added to the Entity List in this rule.

This final rule adds the following one Russian gas and oil field to the Entity List to expand the EAR license requirements in § 746.5:

Russia

(1) Yuzhno-Kirinskoye Field, in the Sea of Okhotsk.

Clarification to the Introductory Text of the Entity List

As noted above, BIS places entities on the Entity List based on certain sections of part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and part 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR. This final rule, as a clarification for this existing BIS policy for adding persons to the Entity List, revises the first sentence of the introductory text of the Entity List to add a reference to part 746. This clarification to the introductory text will make it clear that this Supplement lists certain entities subject to license requirements for specified items under this part 744 and part 746 of the EAR.

Clarification to Russian Industry Sector Sanctions

In § 746.5 (Russian industry sector sanctions), this final rule revises the second sentence of paragraph (a)(2) for the additional prohibition on those informed by BIS to add the term “end-use” after the term “end-user.” This change clarifies that the additional prohibition described in this paragraph (a)(2), as part of the BIS “is informed” process, may be based on an end-user or end-use when BIS determines there is an unacceptable risk of use in, or diversion to, the activities specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section in Russia. This clarification does not change the scope of § 746.5, but rather clarifies the cases in which BIS will use the “is informed” process to assist exporters, reexporters, and transferors to “know” when an export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) is subject to the license requirements specified in § 746.5.

Export Administration Act

Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 7, 2014, 79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222 as amended by Executive Order 13637.

Rulemaking Requirements

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications and carries a burden estimate of 43.8 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to [email protected], or by fax to (202) 395-7285.

3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

4. For the Entity List changes in this final rule, the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment and a delay in effective date are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. (See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). BIS implements this rule to protect U.S. foreign policy interests by preventing items from being exported, reexported, or transferred (in country) for use in, or diversion to, the activities specified in the Russian industry sector sanctions at the Russian field being added to the Entity List. If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective date, then persons working on or in the Russian field being added to the Entity List by this action would continue to be able to receive items subject to the EAR without a license and to conduct activities contrary to the Russian industry sector sanctions. In addition, publishing a proposed rule would give parties trying to export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to this location notice of the U.S. Government's intention to place this Russian field on the Entity List and would create an incentive for persons located at this Russian field to accelerate receiving items subject to the EAR to conduct activities that are contrary to the to the Russian industry sector sanctions, and/or to take steps to set up additional aliases and other measures to try to limit the impact of the listing on the Entity List. Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

5. For the clarification to Russian industry sector sanctions and clarification to the introductory text of the Entity List, the Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because allowing for notice and comment would be contrary to the public interest. The revisions to § 746.5(a)(2) and the introductory text to Supplement No. 4 to Part 744, facilitate public understanding of existing interpretations of current EAR provisions, and therefore prior notice and the opportunity for public comment would prevent BIS promulgating these revisions as soon as possible so that the public will be aware of the correct text and meaning of these current EAR provisions.

BIS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). As mentioned previously, the revisions described here made by this rule consist of minor clarifications that need to be in place as soon as possible to avoid confusion by the public regarding the intent and meaning of these changes to the EAR.

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for these amendments by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable.

List of Subjects 15 CFR Part 744

Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

15 CFR Part 746

Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, parts 744 and 746 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) are amended as follows:

PART 744—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 continues to read as follows: Authority:

50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice of August 7, 2014, 79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014); Notice of September 17, 2014, 79 FR 56475 (September 19, 2014); Notice of November 7, 2014, 79 FR 67035 (November 12, 2014); Notice of January 21, 2015, 80 FR 3461 (January 22, 2015).

2. Supplement No. 4 to part 744 is amended by: a. Adding introductory text; b. Removing from the table the text below the headings and above the entry for “Afghansistan”; and c. Adding under Russia, in alphabetical order, the entity “Yuzhno-Kirinskoye Field, in the Sea of Okhotsk”.

The additions read as follows:

Supplement No. 4 to Part 744—Entity List

This Supplement lists certain entities subject to license requirements for specified items under this part 744 and part 746 of the EAR. License requirements for these entities include exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) unless otherwise stated. This list of entities is revised and updated on a periodic basis in this Supplement by adding new or amended notifications and deleting notifications no longer in effect.

Country Entity License
  • requirement
  • License
  • review policy
  • Federal Register
  • citation
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * RUSSIA *         *         *         *         *         * Yuzhno-Kirinskoye Field, in the Sea of Okhotsk. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 746.5 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 80 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER]; 8/7/15. *         *         *         *         *         * *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    PART 746—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 746 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 287c; Sec 1503, Pub. L. 108-11, 117 Stat. 559; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12854, 58 FR 36587, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 614; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 28205, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 899; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13338, 69 FR 26751, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p 168; Presidential Determination 2003-23 of May 7, 2003, 68 FR 26459, May 16, 2003; Presidential Determination 2007-7 of December 7, 2006, 72 FR 1899 (January 16, 2007); Notice of August 7, 2014, 79 FR 46959 (August 11, 2014); Notice of May 6, 2015, 80 FR 26815 (May 8, 2015).

    4. Section 746.5 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
    § 746.5 Russian industry sector sanctions.

    (a) * * *

    (2) Additional prohibition on those informed by BIS. BIS may inform persons, either individually by specific notice or through amendment to the EAR, that a license is required for a specific export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) or for the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of specified items to a certain end-user or end-use, because there is an unacceptable risk of use in, or diversion to, the activities specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section in Russia. Specific notice is to be given only by, or at the direction of, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. When such notice is provided orally, it will be followed by a written notice within two working days signed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. However, the absence of any such notification does not excuse persons from compliance with the license requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

    Dated: July 30, 2015. Eric L. Hirschhorn, Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19274 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 19 CFR Parts 181 and 191 [CBP Dec. 15-11] RIN 1515-AE02 Liberalization of Certain Documentary Evidence Required as Proof of Exportation on Drawback Claims AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This document amends U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations by removing some of the requirements for documentation used to establish proof of exportation for drawback claims. Currently, claimants must provide originally signed documentary evidence or a certified copy of such documentary evidence to establish the date and fact of exportation of articles for drawback purposes. This document also amends various sections of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to reflect that there is no longer a legal requirement that the export invoice for mail shipments be certified. Additionally, this document amends Appendix B to part 191 of title 19 so that the Appendix reflects previous regulatory amendments closing four drawback offices. Finally, this document amends CBP regulations to reflect the change from the legacy agency name of U.S. Customs Service to the current agency name of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and to make other non-substantive editorial changes.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on August 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For legal aspects, Carrie L. Owens, Chief, Entry Process & Duty Refunds Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, (202) 325-0266. For operational aspects, Celestine L. Harrell, Chief, Post Release and Trade Processes Branch, Office of International Trade, (202) 863-6937.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    This document amends the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations by: (1) Removing some of the requirements for drawback claimants to establish proof of exportation; (2) conforming Appendix B to part 191 of the CBP regulations to previous regulatory changes reflecting the closing of four drawback offices; (3) updating the regulations to reflect that CBP is now part of the Department of Homeland Security; and (4) making other non-substantive editorial and nomenclature changes.

    Easing the Requirements for Establishing Proof of Exportation

    This document amends title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR) by making amendments to 19 CFR parts 181 and 191, specifically, sections 19 CFR 181.47, 191.72 and 191.74 to align CBP documentation requirements with current business practices related to the documents used to establish the date and fact of exportation for purposes of drawback. In order to qualify for drawback, claimants must establish that articles are exported or destroyed. When drawback is claimed for exported goods, the claimant must submit documentation that establishes fully the date and fact of exportation and the identity of the exporter. See 19 CFR 191.72. For certain types of drawback claims subject to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), documentation must also establish the identity and location of the ultimate consignee of the exported goods. See 19 CFR 181.47 (b)(2)(ii)(G).

    The documents for establishing exportation include, but are not limited to: a bill of lading, air waybill, freight waybill, Canadian Customs manifest, and/or cargo manifest. See 19 CFR 191.72(a). If the export is a mail shipment, vessel supply, or transfer to a foreign trade zone, other procedures to establish exportation may apply. See 19 CFR 191.72 (c)-(e). Current CBP regulations specify that the documents listed in paragraph (a) must be either originally signed or certified copies thereof. See 19 CFR 191.72(a). Additionally, certain claims subject to NAFTA require that the claimant produce an originally signed document or a certified copy of such document. See 19 CFR 181.47(b)(2)(ii)(G).

    Acquiring pen and ink signatures for the original documentation or certified copies of such documentation is time consuming and often unrealistic for the trade. CBP realizes the difficulty of having to provide a pen and ink signature for documents when these documents are issued electronically and do not contain an actual pen and ink signature. As a consequence, drawback claims are often denied when claimants can produce only documentary evidence that does not contain a signature or copies of such documents that are not certified.

    As such, CBP is amending its regulations by removing the requirement that the documentary evidence that establishes the date and fact of exportation for drawback eligibility be originally signed or that any copy of such documentary evidence must be certified. CBP will now allow claimants to provide unsigned originals or copies of documentary evidence as proof of export for drawback eligibility. Therefore, copies of original documentary evidence will no longer need to be certified.

    Additionally, pursuant to 19 CFR 191.72(c), CBP currently requires a certified export invoice for mail shipments and references section 191.74. Even though section 191.72(c) cites to section 191.74 as a reference for the “certified export invoice” requirement for mail shipments, the regulatory text of 19 CFR 191.74 does not require a claimant to submit a certified copy of the export invoice, but only requires that the claimant provide the official postal records. There is no reference to “export invoice” in section 191.74. Further, the only reference to “certification” is in the title heading to section 191.74. Accordingly, CBP is removing the phrase “Certification of” from the heading text to section 191.74 as it is misleading as to what that regulation requires. Thus, CBP is clarifying that claimants submitting postal records in support of exportation in accordance with section 191.74 may submit either originals or uncertified copies of official postal records by clearly stating that within the text of section 191.74. Further, CBP is revising section 191.72(c) to accurately reflect the plain language of section 191.74 by requiring evidence of official postal records (originals or copies) that demonstrate exportation by mail.

    Other non-substantive editorial changes to reflect the plain English mandate are made to these regulatory sections, 19 CFR 181.47, 191.72 and 191.74.

    Conforming Amendments

    CBP inadvertently failed to remove from Appendix B to part 191 references to certain drawback offices when the agency previously amended the regulations to close four drawback offices. Three drawback offices were closed in 2003 (Boston, MA; New Orleans, LA; and Miami, FL) and one in 2010 (Long Beach, CA). See Consolidation of Customs Drawback Centers: Final rule, 68 FR 3381, dated January 24, 2003; and Further Consolidation of CBP Drawback Centers: Final rule, 75 FR 24392, dated May 5, 2010. Accordingly, this document amends Appendix B, Sections II through V within part 191 of 19 CFR to reflect the closure of those four drawback offices by removing the reference to eight drawback offices and by removing the references to the locations of the four closed offices (that is, Boston, MA; Long Beach, CA; Miami, FL; and New Orleans, LA).

    Nomenclature Changes

    On November 25, 2002, the President signed into law the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135). Accordingly, as of March 1, 2003, the former U.S. Customs Service of the Department of the Treasury was transferred to DHS and reorganized to become CBP. Accordingly, this document further amends § 181.47 to reflect the change from the legacy agency name, U.S. Customs Service, to the current name, U.S. Customs and Border Protection or CBP.

    Discussion of Changes Part 181

    Section 181.47 of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 181.47) pertains to the documents required for a NAFTA drawback claim. Paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(G) of § 181.47 is amended by removing the requirement that copies of the exemplar documents in that paragraph be certified.

    In addition, section 181.47 contains the legacy agency name of Customs. Accordingly, § 181.47 is amended to remove the outdated information and replace it with the current agency name CBP in §§ 181.47(b)(2), 181.47(b)(2)(i)(A), 181.47(b)(2)(i)(B), 181.47(b)(2)(i)(F), 181.47(b)(2)(ii)(A), 181.47(b)(2)(ii)(B), 181.47(b)(2)(ii)(C), 181.47(b)(2)(ii)(D), 181.47(b)(2)(ii)(E), 181.47(b)(2)(iii)(A), 181.47(b)(2)(iii)(B), and 181.47(b)(2)(iii)(D). Additionally, the word “shall” is replaced with either “must”, “will” or “is”, as appropriate, in paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(i)(E), (b)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(ii)(B), (b)(2)(ii)(G), (b)(2)(ii)(H), (b)(2)(iii), (b)(2)(iv), (b)(2)(v), and (c) of § 181.47 to conform with the plain English mandate.

    Part 191

    Section 191.72 of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 191.72) pertains to exportation procedures for drawback. Section 191.72(a) is amended by removing the terms “originally signed” and “certified” from the list of acceptable documentary evidence for establishing the date and fact of exportation for drawback eligibility. Section 191.72(c) is revised to reflect the requirements of section 191.74 and to reflect that the postal records for export shipments no longer have to be certified. Section 191.74 is amended by removing the words “Certification of” from the heading text because the text of 191.74 does not require a claimant to submit a certified copy of the postal record and the title heading cannot impose a legal requirement that is not also reflected in the regulatory text. CBP is also making it clear that claimants may submit either originals or copies of official postal records by adding the parenthetical phrase “(originals or copies)” after the phrase “official postal records” in section 191.74.

    This document also makes non-substantive amendments to Appendix B, Sections II through V within part 191 of 19 CFR as discussed above.

    Inapplicability of Notice and Delayed Effective Date

    Because the amendments in parts 181 and 191 of 19 CFR set forth in this document merely relieve a burden on the public and the amendments to the Appendix of part 191 conform the regulations to previous regulatory changes to reflect the consolidation of drawback offices, CBP finds that good cause exists for dispensing with notice and public procedure as unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). For this same reason, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), CBP finds good cause for dispensing with the requirement for a delayed effective date.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Because this document is not subject to the notice and public procedure requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553, it is not subject to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

    Executive Order 12866

    These amendments do not meet the criteria for a “significant regulatory action” as specified in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563.

    Signing Authority

    This regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1), pertaining to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (or that of his delegate) to approve regulations concerning drawback.

    List of Subjects 19 CFR Part 181

    Administrative practice and procedure, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    19 CFR Part 191

    Claims, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Amendments to the CBP Regulations

    For the reasons set forth above, parts 181 and 191 of the CBP Regulations (19 CFR parts 181 and 191) and Appendix B to part 191 of 19 CFR are amended as set forth below:

    PART 181—NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT 1. The general authority citation for part 181 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1624, 3314.

    § 181.47 [Amended]
    2. In § 181.47: a. Paragraph (a) is amended by: (i) In the first sentence, by removing the word “shall” and adding, in its place, the word “will”; (ii) In the second sentence, by removing the word “shall” each place it occurs and adding, in its place, the word “must”; and (iii) In the third sentence, by removing the word “shall” and adding, in its place, the word “will”; b. Paragraph (b)(1) is amended by removing the word “shall” each place it occurs and adding, in its place, the word “must”; c. Paragraph (b)(2) introductory text is amended by removing the word “Customs” and adding, in its place, the term “CBP”; d. Paragraph (b)(2)(i) is amended by removing the word “shall” and adding, in its place, the word “must”; e. Paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(A), (b)(2)(i)(B) and (b)(2)(i)(F) are amended by removing the word “Customs” and adding, in its place, the term “CBP”; f. Paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(E) and (b)(2)(ii) introductory text are amended by removing the word “shall” and adding, in its place, the word “must”; g. Paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) is amended by removing the word “Customs” and adding, in its place, the term “CBP”; and by removing the word “shall” and adding, in its place, the word “must”; h. Paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) is amended by: (i) Removing the first and third occurrence of the word “Customs” and adding, in its place, the term “CBP”; (ii) Removing the second occurrence of the word “Customs” and adding, in its place, the words “the CBP-assigned”; and (iii) Removing the word “shall” and adding, in its place, the word “must”; i. Paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(C), (b)(2)(ii)(D) and (b)(2)(ii)(E) are amended by removing the word “Customs” and adding, in its place, the term “CBP”; j. Paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(G) is revised; k. Paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(H) is amended by removing the phrase “shall be” and adding, in its place, the word “is”; l. Paragraph (b)(2)(iii) is amended by removing the word “shall” and adding, in its place, the word “must”; m. Paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A), (b)(2)(iii)(B), and (b)(2)(iii)(D) are amended by removing the word “Customs” each place it appears and adding, in its place, the term “CBP”; n. Paragraph (b)(2)(iv) is amended by: (i) Removing the first occurrence of the word “shall” and adding, in its place, the word “will”; and (ii) Removing the second occurrence of the word “shall” and adding, in its place, the word “must”; o. Paragraph (b)(2)(v) is amended by removing the word “shall” and adding, in its place, the word “will”; and p. Paragraph (c) introductory text is amended by removing the word “shall” and adding, in its place, the word “must”.

    The revision reads as follows:

    § 181.47 Completion of claim for drawback.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (G) Evidence of exportation. Acceptable documentary evidence of exportation of goods to Canada or Mexico may include originals or copies of any of the following documents that are issued by the exporting carrier: bill of lading, air waybill, freight waybill, export ocean bill of lading, Canadian customs manifest, and cargo manifest. Supporting documentary evidence must establish fully the time and fact of exportation, the identity of the exporter, and the identity and location of the ultimate consignee of the exported goods;

    PART 191—DRAWBACK 3. The general authority citation for part 191 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1313, 1624.

    § 191.72 [Amended]

    4. In § 191.72:

    a. The introductory paragraph is amended by removing the word “shall” and adding, in its place, the word “must” in the first two sentences; and b. Paragraphs (a) and (c) are revised to read as follows:
    § 191.72 Exportation procedures.

    (a) Documentary evidence of exportation (originals or copies) issued by the exporting carrier, such as a bill of lading, air waybill, freight waybill, Canadian Customs manifest, and/or cargo manifest;”.

    (c) Official postal records (originals or copies) which evidence exportation by mail (§ 191.74);

    § 191.74 [Amended]
    5. In § 191.74: a. The section heading is revised; b. In the first sentence, add the parenthetical “(originals or copies”) after the phrase “the official postal records”; and c. The last sentence is amended by removing the parenthetical “(see § 191.51(a)” and adding, in its place, the parenthetical “(see § 191.51(a))”.

    The revision reads as follows:

    § 191.74 Exportation by mail.
    Appendix B to Part 191 [Amended] 6. In Appendix B to Part 191, Sections II through V, under the headings titled, “CBP OFFICE WHERE DRAWBACK CLAIMS WILL BE FILED” remove the parenthetical “(The 8 offices where drawback claims can be filed are located at: Boston, MA; New York, NY; Miami, FL; New Orleans, LA; Houston, TX; Long Beach, CA; Chicago, IL; San Francisco, CA)” each place it appears and adding, in its place, the parenthetical “(The four offices where drawback claims can be filed are located at: New York, NY; Houston, TX; Chicago, IL; San Francisco, CA)”. R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Approved: August 4, 2015. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19466 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Docket No. TTB-2015-0002; T.D. TTB-129; Ref: Notice No. 146] RIN 1513-AC12 Establishment of the Squaw Valley-Miramonte Viticultural Area AGENCY:

    Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; Treasury decision.

    SUMMARY:

    The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes, through this final rule, the approximately 44,690-acre “Squaw Valley-Miramonte” viticultural area in Fresno County, California. The viticultural area does not overlap any established viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective September 8, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority

    Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.

    Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.

    Definition

    Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.

    Requirements

    Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12(c) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12(c)) prescribes standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:

    • Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;

    • An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;

    • A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, including climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;

    • The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and

    • A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.

    Squaw Valley-Miramonte Petition

    TTB received a petition from Christine Flannigan, owner of the Sierra Peaks Winery and Purgatory Vineyards, on behalf of the Squaw Valley Grape Growers Group, proposing the establishment of the “Squaw Valley-Miramonte” AVA in Fresno County, California, approximately 40 miles east of the city of Fresno. The proposed AVA is a largely rural region in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and does not overlap any established AVAs. To the northwest, west, and south of the proposed AVA is the San Joaquin Valley. The Sequoia National Forest is adjacent to the northern and eastern boundaries of the proposed AVA.

    The proposed Squaw Valley-Miramonte AVA contains approximately 44,690 acres and has 3 bonded wineries and 5 commercially producing vineyards, covering a total of 7.5 acres, distributed across the proposed AVA. The petition states that vineyards within the proposed AVA are small due to the region's steep and rugged terrain, which requires most vineyard work to be done by hand rather than by machine.

    According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA include its climate, topography, and soils. Daytime temperatures within the proposed AVA are generally cooler than in the neighboring San Joaquin Valley to the south, west, and northwest. However, nighttime temperatures are usually warmer within the proposed AVA than within the San Joaquin Valley because cool air drains off the slopes of the proposed AVA at night and settles in the valley. The cool daytime temperatures and warm nighttime temperatures during the growing season produce higher levels of sugar and anthocyanins (pigments responsible for the color of grape skins) at harvest than occur in grapes grown in the warmer San Joaquin Valley. The temperatures in the proposed AVA also contribute to later harvest dates than in the San Joaquin Valley. The proposed AVA also receives significantly more rainfall than the San Joaquin Valley, but less than the regions to the north and east of the proposed AVA, within the Sequoia National Forest. The high rainfall amounts within the proposed AVA increase the risk of erosion, so vineyard owners plant ground cover between the vineyard rows to help hold the soil in place.

    The topography of the proposed AVA consists of steep and rugged hillsides covered with boulders and oak woodlands. Elevations range from 1,600 to 3,500 feet, and slope angles in the vineyards range from 15 to 40 percent. As a result of the steep terrain, mechanized vineyard equipment is not practical, so almost all vineyard work is done by hand. Therefore, the vineyards in the proposed AVA are much smaller than those in the neighboring San Joaquin Valley, where the terrain is much lower and flatter. To the north and east of the proposed AVA, the terrain becomes too steep for commercial viticulture.

    The majority of the soils within the proposed Squaw Valley-Miramonte AVA are derived from granitic material, mainly quartz diorite. The three most common soil series are the Vista, Sierra, and Auberry series. All three soil series are described as having good drainage, which reduces the risk of root disease. The soils within the proposed AVA have pH levels ranging from a slightly acidic 5.6 to a neutral 7.3, levels which are adequate for viticulture and do not promote overly vigorous vine or canopy growth. The soils within the proposed AVA are severely deficient in nitrogen, a nutrient necessary for vine growth, and therefore require supplementation. Additionally, soils in some of the vineyards within the proposed AVA have an excess of potassium, which interferes with the vines' ability to uptake magnesium. As a result, magnesium must be added to the soil in these vineyards. To the north of the proposed AVA, the soils are primarily of the Coarsegold and Trabuco series, which are derived from weathered schist and igneous rock, respectively. The most common soil series east of the proposed AVA are the Holland series, derived from weathered granitic rock, and the Aiken series, derived from volcanic rocks. These soils are more acidic than the soils within the proposed AVA due to deep mats of decomposing needle litter from conifer trees. South and west of the proposed AVA, within the San Joaquin Valley, alluvial soils such as San Joaquin loam and San Joaquin sandy loam become common, as are soils of the Hanford and Greenfield series. These soils are all less acidic and have finer textures than the soils of the proposed AVA.

    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received

    TTB published Notice No. 146 in the Federal Register on January 22, 2015 (80 FR 3184), proposing to establish the Squaw Valley-Miramonte AVA. In the notice, TTB summarized the evidence from the petition regarding the name, boundary, and distinguishing features for the proposed AVA. The notice also compared the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA to the surrounding areas. In Notice No. 146, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the name, boundary, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. The comment period closed on March 23, 2015. TTB received no comments in response to Notice No. 146.

    TTB Determination

    After careful review of the petition, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the petitioner supports the establishment of the Squaw Valley-Miramonte AVA. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and part 4 and part 9 of the TTB regulations, TTB establishes the “Squaw Valley-Miramonte” AVA in Fresno County, California, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document.

    Boundary Description

    See the narrative description of the boundary of the AVA in the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.

    Maps

    The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the regulatory text.

    Impact on Current Wine Labels

    Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.

    With the establishment of this AVA, its name, “Squaw Valley-Miramonte,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3). The text of the regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Squaw Valley-Miramonte” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin. TTB is not designating either “Squaw Valley” or “Miramonte,” standing alone, as terms of viticultural significance because both of these names are also associated with multiple locations within the United States outside the AVA.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

    Executive Order 12866

    It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.

    Drafting Information

    Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this final rule.

    List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

    Wine.

    The Regulatory Amendment

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    27 U.S.C. 205.

    Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Subpart C is amended by adding § 9.251 to read as follows:
    § 9.251 Squaw Valley-Miramonte.

    (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “Squaw Valley-Miramonte.” For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, “Squaw Valley-Miramonte” is a term of viticultural significance.

    (b) Approved maps. The six United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the Squaw Valley-Miramonte viticultural area are titled:

    (1) Orange Cove North, Calif., 1966;

    (2) Pine Flat Dam, Calif., 1965; photoinspected 1978;

    (3) Luckett Mtn., Calif., provisional edition 1987;

    (4) Verplank Ridge, Calif., provisional edition 1987;

    (5) Miramonte, Calif., 1966; and

    (6) Tucker Mtn., Calif., 1966.

    (c) Boundary. The Squaw Valley-Miramonte viticultural area is located in Fresno County, California. The boundary of the Squaw Valley-Miramonte viticultural area is as described below:

    (1) The beginning point is located on the Orange Cove North map, at the southwest corner of section 21, T14S/R25E. From the beginning point, proceed north-northwesterly in a straight line to the marked 3,355-foot elevation point on Bear Mountain, section 5, T14S/R25E; then

    (2) Proceed northeast in a straight line, crossing onto the Pine Flat Dam map and over the marked 3,354-foot elevation point on Bear Mountain, section 32, T13S/R25E, and then continuing northeasterly in a straight line and crossing onto the Luckett Mountain map, proceed to the marked 3,489-foot summit of Dalton Mountain, section 22, T13S/R25E; then

    (3) Proceed easterly in a straight line to the Sequoia National Forest boundary line at the northwest corner of section 28, T13S/R26E; then

    (4) Proceed east along the Sequoia National Forest boundary line, crossing onto the Verplank Ridge map, and continue south, then east, then south along the national forest boundary line, crossing onto the Miramonte map, and then continue south, then east along the national forest boundary line to the northeast corner of section 5, T14S/R27E; then

    (5) Proceed south along the eastern boundary lines of sections 5, 8, and 17, T14S/R27E, to the southeast corner of section 17; then

    (6) Proceed east along the northern boundary line of section 21, T14S/R27E, to the northeast corner of that section; then

    (7) Proceed south along the eastern boundary lines of sections 21, 28, and 33, T14S/R27E, to the Fresno-Tulare County boundary line at the southeast corner of section 33; then

    (8) Proceed west along the Fresno-Tulare County boundary line, crossing onto the Tucker Mountain map, to the southwest corner of section 34, T14S/R26E; then

    (9) Proceed north along the western boundary lines of sections 34, 27, 22, and 15, T14S/R26E, to the northwest corner of section 15; then

    (10) Proceed west along the southern boundary lines of sections 9, 8, and 7, T14S/R26E, and sections 12 and 11, T14S/R25E, to the southwest corner of section 11; then

    (11) Proceed south along the eastern boundary lines of sections 15 and 22, T14S/R25E, to the southeast corner of section 22; then (12) Proceed west along the southern boundary line of section 22, T14S/R25E, and, crossing onto the Orange Cove North map, continue west along the southern boundary line of section 21, T14S/R25E, returning to the beginning point.

    Signed: June 11, 2015. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. Approved: June 17, 2015. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
    [FR Doc. 2015-19454 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0741] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Galveston, TX AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the operation of the Galveston Causeway Railroad Vertical Lift Bridge across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile 357.2 west of Harvey Locks, at Galveston, Galveston County, Texas. The deviation is necessary in order to conduct maintenance on the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain temporarily closed to navigation for eight hours on consecutive days during day light hours and will operate normally at all other times.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from August 31 through September 5, 2015. This deviation will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 and then again from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., daily, beginning August 31 through September 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0741] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Jim Wetherington, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast Guard; telephone 504-671-2128, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl F. Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The BNSF Railway Company requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule of the Galveston Causeway Railroad Vertical Lift Bridge across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile 357.2 west of Harvey Locks, at Galveston, Galveston County, Texas.

    The bridge has a vertical clearance of 8.0 feet above mean high water, elevation 3.0 feet (NAVD88), in the closed-to-navigation position and 73 feet above mean high water in the open-to-navigation position. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, the draw shall open on signal for the passage of vessels.

    This temporary deviation allows the vertical lift bridge to remain closed to navigation from 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 and then again from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., daily, beginning August 31 through September 5, 2015. During this time, the bridge owner will complete cable lubing, welding joints and replacing span guide bearings. If the vessel can safely pass without an opening, the vessel may pass at the slowest safe speed. The bridge can open in case of emergency.

    Navigation at the site of the bridge consists mainly of tows with barges and some recreational pleasure craft. Based on known waterway users, as well as coordination with those waterway users, it has been determined that this closure will not have a significant effect on these vessels. No alternate routes are available.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35, the draw bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation.

    This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. David M. Frank, Bridge Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19377 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0624] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River at Portland, OR AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs four Multnomah County bridges: the Broadway Bridge, mile 11.7, Burnside Bridge, mile 12.4, Morrison Bridge, mile 12.8, and Hawthorne Bridge, mile 13.1, all crossing the Willamette River at Portland, OR. This deviation is necessary to accommodate the annual Portland Providence Bridge Pedal event. This deviation allows the bridges to remain in the closed-to-navigation position to allow safe roadway movement of event participants.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on August 9, 2015, to 12:30 p.m. on August 9, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0624] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Multnomah County has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Broadway Bridge, mile 11.7, Burnside Bridge, mile 12.4, Morrison Bridge, mile 12.8, and Hawthorne Bridge, mile 13.1, all crossing the Willamette River at Portland, OR. The requested deviation is to accommodate the annual Providence Bridge Pedal event. To facilitate this event, the draws of the bridges will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation positions as follows: The Broadway Bridge, mile 11.7, provides a vertical clearance of 90 feet in the closed position; Burnside Bridge, mile 12.4, provides a vertical clearance of 64 feet in the closed position; Morrison Bridge, mile 12.8, provides a vertical clearance of 69 feet in the closed position; and Hawthorne Bridge, mile 13.1, provides a vertical clearance of 49 feet in the closed position; all clearances are referenced to the vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0. The normal operating schedule for all four bridges is set in 33 CFR 117.897, and states that the bridges need not open from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. These four bridges need not open for vessel traffic from 6 a.m. on August 9, 2015, to 12:30 p.m. on August 9, 2015. This deviation period is from 6 a.m. on August 9, 2015, to 12:30 p.m. August 9, 2015. The deviation allows the Broadway Bridge, Burnside Bridge, Morrison Bridge, and the Hawthorne Bridge all crossing the Willamette River, to remain in the closed-to-navigation position and need not open for maritime traffic from 6 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on August 9, 2015. The four bridges shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.897 at all other times. Waterway usage on this part of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation positions may do so at any time. The bridges will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridges so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

    Dated: July 17, 2015. Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19373 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 42 CFR Part 110 RIN 0906-AA79 Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program: Pandemic Influenza Countermeasures Injury Table AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    HHS is establishing the Pandemic Influenza Countermeasures Injury Table as authorized by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act). Through this final rule, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary) adds regulations for the purpose of creating Covered Countermeasures Injury Tables. The pandemic influenza countermeasures are identified in Secretarial declarations relating to pandemic influenza, including influenza caused by the 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza virus (hereafter referred to as the 2009 H1N1 virus) and other potential pandemic strains, such as H5N1 avian influenza.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective September 8, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Avril M. Houston, Director, Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Healthcare Systems Bureau, HRSA, Parklawn Building, Room 11C-26, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, or by telephone (855) 266-2427. This is a toll-free number.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On March 30, 2014, HHS published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register to amend the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program's (CICP or Program) implementing regulation and establish a table of injuries resulting from the administration or use of covered pandemic influenza countermeasures. The NPRM provided a 60-day comment period resulting in HHS receipt of five sets of comments—one set from a physicians' organization and four sets from individuals. HHS carefully considered these comments when developing this final rule. In “Section III, Comments and Responses” of this final rule, the comments are summarized and HHS provides responses to them.

    I. Background

    The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act of 2005 (PREP Act) directs the Secretary to establish, through regulation, a Covered Countermeasures Injury Table (Table) identifying serious physical injuries that are presumed to be directly caused by the administration or use of covered countermeasures identified in PREP Act declarations issued by the Secretary.

    The Secretary may only add to a Table injuries that are directly caused by the administration or use of the covered countermeasure based on “compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence.” 1 This Table informs the public about serious physical injuries known to be directly caused by covered countermeasures through support by compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence. In addition, this Table creates a rebuttable presumption of causation for eligible individuals whose injuries are listed on a Table and meet the requirements of a Table.

    1 42 U.S.C. 247d-6e(b)(5)(A).

    The PREP Act authorizes both liability protections and compensation based on the terms of the PREP Act declarations, but this final rule concerns only the compensation program, not the liability protections set forth therein.

    The Secretary published the interim final rule implementing the Program on October 15, 2010.2 The final rule, which was published on October 7, 2011, explains the Program's policies, procedures, and requirements. Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 110.20(a) states that individuals must establish that a covered injury occurred in order to be eligible for benefits under the Program. A covered injury is death or a serious injury determined by the Secretary to be: (1) An injury meeting the requirements of a Table, which is presumed to be the direct result of the administration or use of a covered countermeasure unless the Secretary determines there is another more likely cause; or (2) an injury (or its health complications) that is the direct result of the administration or use of a covered countermeasure. This includes a covered countermeasure causing a serious aggravation of a pre-existing condition.3 In general, only injuries that warranted hospitalization (whether or not the person was actually hospitalized), or injuries that led to a significant loss of function or disability are considered serious injuries.4

    2 42 CFR part 110.

    3 42 CFR 110.3(g)(2).

    4 42 CFR 110.3(z).

    Individuals with injuries not meeting the requirements listed on the Table may still pursue their claims as non-Table injuries under the Program. In this instance, the requester does not receive the presumption of causation for a Table injury and must demonstrate that the use or administration of the covered countermeasure directly caused the injury. Proof of a causal association for the non-Table injury must be based on compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence.

    II. Summary of the Final Rule

    Through this final rule, the Secretary will be adding subpart K to 42 CFR part 110, which had been reserved for the purpose of creating a Covered Countermeasures Injury Table. The Table established in this final rule is limited to pandemic influenza covered countermeasures. These countermeasures are identified in Secretarial declarations relating to pandemic influenza, including influenza caused by the 2009 H1N1 virus, and other potential pandemic strains, such as H5N1 avian influenza. The Secretary may create and publish Tables in the Federal Register through separate amendments to 42 CFR part 110 in the future. Tables may be created for other countermeasures in accordance with the PREP Act. To date, declarations have been issued with respect to countermeasures against pandemic influenza A viruses, anthrax, botulism, smallpox, acute radiation syndrome, and the Ebola virus.

    Through the Pandemic Influenza Countermeasures Injury Table Final Rule, the Secretary provides, as authorized by statute, a Table for several covered countermeasures listing serious physical injuries. The serious physical injuries included on the Table are injuries that are supported by compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence showing that the administration or use of the covered countermeasures directly causes such injuries. The Table lists the serious injuries directly caused by a specific countermeasure, the time interval within which the first symptom or manifestation of onset of injury must appear, and the definition of the injury. Table definitions are included to further explain each covered injury and the level of severity necessary to qualify as a Table injury.

    The injuries, time intervals, definitions, and requirements reflect the Secretary's efforts to identify those serious physical injuries causally related to the covered countermeasures. The causal linkages between the covered countermeasures and these associated injuries are based on compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence. The Secretary will stay informed of updates in the scientific and medical field concerning new information about causal associations between injuries and covered countermeasures.

    In this final rule, the Secretary has made the following changes to the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (QAI) of the Table for purposes of clarity.

    a. Changed section (b)(4)(i) by adding an accent over the “e” in Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS). The revised section term reads, “Guillain-Barré Syndrome.” In the first sentence, added “currently is known to encompass” after “that” and delete “encompasses.” The revised sentence states, “GBS is an acute monophasic peripheral neuropathy that currently is known to encompass a spectrum of four clinicopathological subtypes described below.” In the fourth sentence, changed “nine” to “9.” The revised sentence states, “Treatment related fluctuations in all subtypes of GBS can occur within 9 weeks of GBS symptom onset and recurrence of symptoms after this time frame would not be consistent with GBS.”

    b. Changed section (b)(4)(iv) by adding “The results of both . . .” to the beginning of the second sentence. The revised sentence states, “The results of both CSF and electrophysiologic studies are frequently normal in the first week of illness in otherwise typical cases of GBS.”

    c. Deleted section (b)(4)(v) which states, “For all types of GBS, the onset of symptoms less than three days (72 hours) after exposure to the influenza vaccine excludes vaccine exposure as a cause” because timeframes for serious physical injuries to be Table injuries are listed in the Table, not in the QAI.

    d. Changed section (b)(4)(vi) to (b)(4)(v) since (b)(4)(v) has been deleted as stated above and added to the beginning of the first sentence of section (b)(4)(v), “For GBS to qualify as a Table injury.” The revised sentence states, “For GBS to qualify as a Table injury, there must not be a more likely alternative diagnosis for the weakness.”

    e. Changed section (b)(5)(i)(A) by adding “or” after “tube;”. The revised statement states, “(A) trauma or necrosis from an endotracheal tube; or.”

    f. Changed section (b)(6)(i) by deleting “Definition -” before “VAP” at the beginning of the first sentence. In the fourth sentence, changed the phrase “radiographic infiltrate in the lungs that is consistent with pneumonia” to “radiographic infiltrate that is in the lungs and consistent with pneumonia.”

    g. Changed section (b)(7) by adding “To qualify as Table injuries,” before “these” to the beginning of the last sentence. The revised sentence states, “To qualify as Table injuries, these manifestations must occur in patients who are being mechanically ventilated at the time of initial manifestation of the VILI.” VILI is Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury.

    h. Changed section (b)(8) by adding “who are” after “patients” and before “under” to the first sentence. The revised sentence states, “Bleeding events are defined as excessive or abnormal bleeding in patients who are under the pharmacologic effects of anticoagulant therapy provided for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment.”

    III. Comments and Responses

    The NPRM set forth a 60-day public comment period, which ended on May 30, 2014. During this comment period, HHS received five sets of comments—one set from a physicians' organization and four sets from individuals. Below is a summary of the comments and HHS's responses.

    1. Anaphylaxis

    Comment: A commenter suggested expanding to 12 hours the time frame within which the first symptom or manifestation of anaphylaxis must appear, stating that some cases of anaphylaxis may exhibit a late phase response up to 8-12 hours after exposure, and thus the 0-4 hour time frame is not long enough.

    Response: HHS respectfully disagrees with this comment. There is no consensus within the medical and scientific community about the time frame in which the late phase response starts. As stated in the NPRM, anaphylaxis after immunization is serious, but it occurs rarely. After initial treatment and clinical improvement, some patients with allergic reactions may develop a late phase or “biphasic” reaction, which may be more severe than the initial presentation. Little is known of the pathophysiology of biphasic reactions. The variations and the subjective nature of definitions used for determining the incidence of biphasic reactions in various studies are likely a major contributor to differing results, ranging from a 0.5 percent to 20 percent incidence rate. This makes comparisons of data across studies problematic. Previous guidelines have advocated the monitoring of patients post-anaphylaxis, with recommended durations varying between 4 and 24 hours. This is likely a testament to the uncertainty in the literature. Hence there is no compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence upon which to base a Table time frame for biphasic anaphylactic reactions. HHS recognizes the occurrence of biphasic anaphylactic reactions in a minority of cases. Therefore, the Program will consider a claim for anaphylaxis occurring after the 4-hour time frame leading to a serious injury or death on a case-by-case basis as a non-Table claim.

    2. Pandemic Influenza Intranasal Vaccines

    Comment: A commenter asked if a child would be eligible to receive compensation if he/she is injured from the intranasal vaccine, which was administered because the child was advised by his/her doctor to have the intranasal vaccine, even if perhaps, the child would have been more suited for the vaccine injection.

    Response: Under the CICP, any person who meets the appropriate declaration's definition of covered population, is administered or used a covered countermeasure in accordance with the terms of that declaration (or in good faith belief of such), and is seriously injured as a direct result of the countermeasure, may be eligible for CICP benefits.

    3. Antiviral Usage in Individuals Younger Than 2 Years of Age

    Comment: A commenter was concerned that the guidelines for administration of Tamiflu (oseltamivir), Relenza (zanamivir), and peramivir for infants are not uniform. The commenter stated that the Food and Drug Administration has approved Tamiflu for children as young as 2 weeks of age but that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends Tamiflu, through its safety profile, for treatment of both term and preterm infants from birth, as benefits for therapy are likely to outweigh possible risks of treatment. The commenter suggested that this rule establish the minimum age for administration of these countermeasures to children so that children are not denied compensation because of conflicting policy recommendations about the appropriate administration of these antiviral medications.

    Response: The CICP is not authorized to establish age ranges for the administration of any drug, and therefore, cannot do so through this rule, as suggested by the commenter. The Program can only provide benefits to the population of individuals set forth in the applicable Secretarial declaration.

    4. Incorporation of Children and Infants in Overall Guidelines

    Comment: A commenter made the statement that his organization “firmly believes that the Table should better incorporate the needs of children.” The commenter wants HHS and HRSA to ensure that children are being considered in all aspects of the proposed countermeasures, as well as in this Table.

    Response: As indicated above, Secretarial declarations describe the covered countermeasures and the covered population. Under the CICP, any person who meets the definition of the covered population in the relevant declaration, who receives or uses a covered countermeasure in accordance with the terms of that declaration (or in good faith belief of such), and is seriously injured as a direct result of the countermeasure may be eligible for CICP benefits.

    5. Guillain-Barré Syndrome

    Comment: One commenter was concerned that the description of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) is incomplete because it does not address the fact that GBS affects the peripheral nervous system.

    Response: HHS respectfully disagrees with this comment. The description of GBS as stated in the NPRM and final rule is complete and explicitly addresses that GBS affects the peripheral nervous system. It is an acute monophasic peripheral neuropathy that currently is known to encompass a spectrum of four clinicopathological subtypes described in the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation section of the Table. GBS may manifest with weakness, abnormal sensations, and/or abnormality in the autonomic (involuntary) nervous system.

    Comment: A commenter was concerned that this allegedly incomplete description of GBS may make it difficult for requesters to prove injuries such as Miller-Fisher Syndrome or other variants of GBS that include attacks that lead to organ damage. Another commenter noted that the variants of GBS should be considered.

    Response: HHS respectfully disagrees with the comments that the variants of GBS were not considered. The Table, including its Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation, explicitly addresses how variants of GBS, including Miller-Fisher Syndrome, can meet the Table requirements. GBS may present as one of a spectrum of four clinicopathological subtypes or variants. The most common type in North America and Europe, comprising more than 90 percent of cases, is acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP), which has the pathologic and electrodiagnostic features of focal demyelination of motor and sensory peripheral nerves and roots.

    Another subtype called acute motor axonal neuropathy (AMAN) is generally seen in other parts of the world and is predominated by axonal damage that primarily affects motor nerves. AMAN lacks features of demyelination. The axon is a portion of the nerve cell that transmits nerve impulses away from the nerve cell body. Another less common subtype of GBS includes acute motor and sensory neuropathy (AMSAN), which is an axonal form of GBS that is similar to AMAN, but also affects the axons of sensory nerves and roots.

    According to the Brighton Collaboration, Fisher Syndrome (FS), also known as Miller-Fisher Syndrome, is a subtype of GBS characterized by ataxia, areflexia, and ophthalmoplegia, and overlap between FS and GBS may be seen with limb weakness.

    GBS is proposed for inclusion on the Table because it is a serious physical injury, and the fact that it may be directly caused by the use of the monovalent 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine (hereafter 2009 H1N1 vaccine) is supported by compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence. Further, GBS is characterized by various degrees of weakness, sensory abnormality and autonomic dysfunction due to damage to peripheral nerves and nerve roots. These variants or subtypes of GBS were addressed fully in the NPRM and are adopted in the final rule.

    Furthermore, as explained above, the description of GBS as stated in the NPRM, and adopted in this final rule, is complete. To the extent that one comment suggested that organ damage should be included as a Table injury, HHS respectfully disagrees. Although demyelination of peripheral nerves or axonal damage can lead to disruption of organ function, they do not lead directly to organ damage. At this time, there is no compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence to support including organ damage on the Table.

    Comment: A commenter was concerned that the 3- to 42-day window of GBS onset is unreasonable because some cases of GBS have been reported to have an onset outside of this interval. The commenter cited the article, “Chart-Confirmed Guillain-Barré Syndrome After 2009 H1N1 Influenza Vaccination Among the Medicare Population, 2009-2010, American Journal of Epidemiology, (2014), 179(5): 660.”

    Response: HHS respectfully disagrees with this comment. The study that was cited by the commenter and published in the American Journal of Epidemiology looked at the risk of GBS development within 119 days of vaccination. The researchers found a slightly increased statistically significant risk of GBS only within the 6-week period after 2009 H1N1 vaccination when compared with the post-vaccination control period.

    As stated in the NPRM, multiple studies performed to monitor the safety of 2009 H1N1 vaccine provide evidence that demonstrates a small statistically significant increased risk of GBS in the 6 weeks following administration of the 2009 H1N1 vaccine.5 Additionally, a meta-analysis was performed of the Emerging Infections Program, the Vaccine Safety Datalink, and the Post-Licensure Rapid Immunization Safety Monitoring System data, together with additional data from safety surveillance studies performed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, which analyzed data from 23 million vaccinated people. The meta-analysis found that the 2009 H1N1 inactivated vaccine was associated with a small increased risk of GBS within 6 weeks of vaccination.

    5 Lawrence B. Schonberger, et al., “Guillain-Barré Syndrome Following Vaccination in the National Influenza Immunization Program, United States, 1976-1977, American Journal of Epidemiology, 25 Apr. 1979, 118; IOM, “Immunization Safety Review: Influenza Vaccines and Neurological Complications,” (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004) 25; Sharon K. Greene, et al., “Risk of Confirmed Guillain-Barré Syndrome Following Receipt of Monovalent Inactivated Influenza A (H1N1) and Seasonal Influenza Vaccines in the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project, 2009-2010; and American Journal of Epidemiology, Jun. 1, 2012, 1100.

    The symptoms of GBS do not develop immediately after exposure to the causative agent. The immune system requires a specified time to complete the steps leading to nerve injury and dysfunction and the early symptoms of GBS. A minimum of 3 days would be necessary from the time of exposure and immune system stimulation to the first symptoms of GBS. Therefore, onset of GBS within less than 72 hours or 3 days of immunization would be strong evidence that the vaccine is not the causative agent.6

    6Peripheral Neuropathy, 4th edition, 2005; Dyck & Thomas, eds. 626.

    HHS believes that the American Journal of Epidemiology study cited by the commenter is consistent with the other studies referenced above in indicating that the window of onset for GBS on the Table is appropriate based on current compelling, reliable, valid medical and scientific evidence.

    6. Comparison of CICP Table Injuries to the VICP Table Injuries

    Comment: A commenter compared the CICP Table injuries with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) Table injuries because the 2009 H1N1 strain has been included in the seasonal influenza vaccine since 2010 and questioned why the Tables are different.

    Response: The VICP and CICP are different programs authorized by two distinct federal statutes. The VICP covers certain vaccines that are recommended by the CDC for routine administration to children and are subject to an excise tax, whereas the CICP covers certain countermeasures, including pandemic influenza vaccines, as identified in Secretarial declarations. Accordingly, the VICP covers seasonal influenza vaccines, such as the quadravalent influenza vaccine, and the CICP covers pandemic vaccines, such as the 2009 monovalent H1N1 vaccine. Presently, the VICP's Table does not include any associated injuries for seasonal influenza vaccines.

    7. West Nile Virus (WNV)

    Comment: A commenter stated “I strongly believe it is beneficial to have an injury compensation program implemented for those who have been extremely touched by West Nile and other harmful influenzas . . .” HHS' understanding is that the commenter wants a compensation program established that would cover the adverse effects of the underlying pandemic or epidemic condition itself.

    Response: Injuries from the WNV or any influenza infection are not covered by the CICP. As stated in the NPRM, only serious injuries directly caused by the administration or use of the covered countermeasure—not injuries that result from the disease (or health condition or threat to health) itself—are covered injuries. For more information, see 42 CFR 110.20(d).

    8. Notification to Individuals Who Have Been Deemed Ineligible for Compensation

    Comment: A commenter suggested that HHS inform all individuals who have previously applied but were deemed ineligible for compensation that they can reapply for compensation.

    Response: HHS agrees with the commenter. Previous requesters, who were deemed ineligible for compensation, will be notified of the new Table by its publication in the Federal Register. The published final rule also will be posted on the CICP Web site at www.hrsa.gov/cicp. Such requesters may have an additional 1-year filing deadline from the effective date of the Table amendment or publication. This additional filing deadline will apply only if the new or amended Table enables a requester, who could not establish a Table injury before the new or amended Table, to establish a covered injury.7

    7 42 CFR 110.42(f).

    IV. Regulatory Impact Analysis

    HHS has examined the impact of this rulemaking as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review, Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, section 654(c) of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999, and Executive Order 13132 on Federalism.

    Executive Order 12866 requires that all regulations reflect consideration of alternatives, costs, benefits, incentives, equity, and available information. Regulations must meet certain standards, such as avoiding an unnecessary burden. Regulations that are “significant” because of cost, adverse effects on the economy, inconsistency with other agency actions, effects on the budget, or novel legal or policy issues, require special analysis. In 2011, President Obama supplemented and reaffirmed Executive Order 12866. This rulemaking is not being treated as a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the final rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    Executive Order 13563 provides that, to the extent feasible and permitted by law, the public must be given a meaningful opportunity to comment on any proposed regulations, with at least a 60-day comment period. In addition, to the extent feasible and permitted by law, agencies must provide timely on-line access to both proposed and final rules of the rulemaking docket on Regulations.gov, including relevant scientific and technical findings, in an open format that can be searched and downloaded. Federal agencies must consider approaches to maintain the freedom of choice and flexibility, including disclosure of relevant information to the public. Regulations must be guided by objective scientific evidence, easy to understand, consistent, and written in plain language. Furthermore, Federal agencies must attempt to coordinate, simplify, and harmonize regulations to reduce costs and promote certainty for the public.

    In this final rule, the Secretary specifies a Table identifying serious physical injuries that shall be presumed to result from the administration or use of the covered countermeasures, and the time interval in which the onset of the first symptom or manifestation of each such serious physical injury must manifest in order for such presumption to apply. The Secretary is also specifying Table definitions and requirements. This final rule would have the effect of affording certain persons a presumption that particular serious physical injuries were sustained as the result of the administration or use of covered pandemic influenza countermeasures. The Table will establish a presumption of causation and relieve requesters of the burden of demonstrating causation for covered injuries listed on the Table. However, this presumption is rebuttable based on the Secretary's review of the evidence. In addition, this Table may afford some requesters a new filing deadline.

    Other than showing that a serious physical injury or death directly resulted from an injury included on the Table, individuals may, in the alternative, be eligible for compensation if they otherwise meet the CICP's requirements and can show a causation-in-fact relationship between an injury or death and a covered countermeasure. This rule is based upon legal authority.

    Because any resources required to implement the regulatory requirements imposed by the Program are not required by virtue of the establishment of a Table, and because the Secretary conducted an independent analysis concerning any burdens associated with the implementation of the Program when the Secretary published the companion regulation setting forth the Program's administrative implementation,8 the Secretary has determined that no resources are required to implement the provisions included in this final rule. Therefore, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, which amended the RFA, the Secretary certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    8 75 FR 64955.

    The Secretary has also determined that this rule does not meet the criteria for a major rule as defined by Executive Order 12866 and would have no major effect on the economy or Federal expenditures. The Secretary has determined that this rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the statute providing for Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking, 5 U.S.C. 801. Similarly, it will not have effects on State, local, and tribal governments or on the private sector such as to require consultation under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This final rule comports with the 2011 supplemental requirements.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Secretary has determined that this final rule will not have effects on State, local, and tribal governments or on the private sector such as to require consultation under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

    Federalism Impact Statement

    The Secretary has also reviewed this final rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that it does not have “federalism implications.” This final rule will not “have substantial direct effects on the States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

    Impact on Family Well-Being

    This final rule will not adversely affect the following elements of family well-being: family safety, family stability, marital commitment; parental rights in the education, nurture, and supervision of their children; family functioning, disposable income, or poverty; or the behavior and personal responsibility of youth, as determined under section 654(c) of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999. In fact, this rule may have a positive impact on the disposable income and poverty elements of family well-being to the extent that injured persons or their families may receive medical, lost employment income, and/or death benefits paid under this part without imposing a corresponding burden on them.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as Amended

    This final rule has no information collection requirements.

    List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 110

    Anaphylaxis, Anticoagulation, Antiviral, Avian, Benefits, Biologics, Bleeding, Bursitis, Compensation, Countermeasure, Declaration, Deltoid, Diagnostics, Device, Eligibility, Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO), Fisher Syndrome, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, 2009 H1N1, Influenza, Injury Table, Immunization, Oseltamivir, Pandemic, Peramivir, Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), Radiation syndrome, Respiratory protection, Relenza, Respirator, Respirator support, Tamiflu, Tracheal Stenosis, Vaccine, Vasovagal Syncope, Ventilator, Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia and Tracheobronchitis, Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury, Zanamivir.

    Dated: July 24, 2015. James Macrae, <E T="03">Acting Administrator, Health Resources and Services Administration.</E> Approved: July 30, 2015. Sylvia M. Burwell, Secretary.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated, the Department of Health and Human Services amends 42 CFR part 110 as follows:

    PART 110—COUNTERMEASURES INJURY COMPENSATION PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 247d-6e.

    2. Add § 110.100 to subpart K to read as follows:
    § 110.100 Injury Tables.

    (a) Pandemic influenza countermeasures injury table.

    Covered countermeasures under Secretarial declarations Serious physical injury
  • (illness, disability, injury, or condition) 1
  • Time interval
  • (for first symptom or manifestation of onset of injury after administration or use of covered countermeasure, unless otherwise specified)
  • I. Pandemic influenza vaccines administered by needle into or through the skin A. Anaphylaxis
  • B. Deltoid Bursitis
  • C. Vasovagal Syncope
  • A. 0-4 hours.
  • B. 0-48 hours.
  • C. 0-1 hour.
  • II. Pandemic influenza intranasal vaccines A. Anaphylaxis A. 0-4 hours. III. Pandemic influenza 2009 H1N1 vaccine A. Guillain-Barré Syndrome A. 3-42 days (not less than 72 hours and not more than 42 days). IV. Oseltamivir Phosphate (Tamiflu) when administered or used for pandemic influenza A. Anaphylaxis A. 0-4 hours. V. Zanamivir (Relenza) when administered or used for pandemic influenza A. Anaphylaxis A. 0-4 hours. VI. Peramivir when administered or used for 2009 H1N1 influenza A. Anaphylaxis A. 0-4 hours. VII. Pandemic influenza personal respiratory protection devices A. No condition covered 2 A. Not applicable. VIII. Pandemic influenza respiratory support devices A. Postintubation Tracheal Stenosis A. 2-42 days (not less than 48 hours and not more than 42 days) after extubation (removal of a tracheostomy or endotracheal tube). B. Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Tracheobronchitis B. More than 48 hours after intubation (placement of an endotracheal or tracheostomy tube) and up to 48 hours after extubation (removal of the tube). C. Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury C. Throughout the time of intubation (breathing through an endotracheal or tracheostomy tube) and up to 48 hours after extubation (removal of the tube). IX. Pandemic influenza respiratory support device: Extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) A. Bleeding Events A. Throughout the time of anticoagulation treatment for ECMO therapy, including the time needed to clear the effect of the anti-coagulant treatment from the body. X. Pandemic influenza diagnostic testing devices A. No condition covered A. Not applicable. 1 Serious physical injury as defined in 42 CFR 110.3(z). Only injuries that warranted hospitalization (whether or not the person was actually hospitalized) or injuries that led to a significant loss of function or disability will be considered serious physical injuries. 2 The use of “No condition covered” in the Table reflects that the Secretary at this time does not find compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence to support that any serious injury is presumed to be caused by the associated covered countermeasure. For injuries alleged to be due to covered countermeasures for which there is no associated Table injury, requesters must demonstrate that the injury occurred as the direct result of the administration or use of the covered countermeasure. See 42 CFR 110.20(b), (c).

    (b) Qualifications and aids to interpretation (table definitions and requirements). The following definitions and requirements shall apply to the Table set forth in this subpart and only apply for purposes of this subpart.

    (1) Anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis is an acute, severe, and potentially lethal systemic reaction that occurs as a single discrete event with simultaneous involvement of two or more organ systems. Most cases resolve without sequelae. Signs and symptoms begin minutes to a few hours after exposure. Death, if it occurs, usually results from airway obstruction caused by laryngeal edema or bronchospasm and may be associated with cardiovascular collapse. Other significant clinical signs and symptoms may include the following: Cyanosis, hypotension, bradycardia, tachycardia, arrhythmia, edema of the pharynx and/or trachea and/or larynx with stridor and dyspnea. There are no specific pathological findings to confirm a diagnosis of anaphylaxis.

    (2) Deltoid bursitis. Deltoid bursitis is an inflammation of the bursa that lies beneath the deltoid muscle and between the acromion process and the rotator cuff. Subdeltoid bursitis manifests with pain in the lateral aspect of the shoulder similar to rotator cuff tendonitis. The presence of tenderness on direct palpation beneath the acromion process distinguishes this bursitis from rotator cuff tendonitis. Similar to tendonitis, isolated bursitis will have full passive range of motion. Other causes of bursitis such as trauma (other than from vaccination), metabolic disorders, and systemic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, dialysis, and infection will not be considered Table injuries. This list is not exhaustive. The deltoid bursitis must occur in the same shoulder that received the pandemic influenza vaccine.

    (3) Vasovagal syncope. Vasovagal syncope (also sometimes called neurocardiogenic syncope) means loss of consciousness (fainting) and loss of postural tone caused by a transient decrease in blood flow to the brain occurring after the administration of an injected countermeasure. Vasovagal syncope is usually a benign condition but may result in falling and injury with significant sequelae. Vasovagal syncope may be preceded by symptoms such as nausea, lightheadedness, diaphoresis, and/or pallor. Vasovagal syncope may be associated with transient seizure-like activity, but recovery of orientation and consciousness generally occurs simultaneously. Loss of consciousness resulting from the following conditions will not be considered vasovagal syncope: Organic heart disease; cardiac arrhythmias; transient ischemic attacks; hyperventilation; metabolic conditions; neurological conditions; psychiatric conditions; seizures; trauma; and situational as can occur with urination, defecation, or cough. This list is not complete. Episodes of recurrent syncope occurring after the applicable time period are not considered to be sequelae of an episode of syncope meeting the Table requirements.

    (4) Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS). (i) GBS is an acute monophasic peripheral neuropathy that currently is known to encompass a spectrum of four clinicopathological subtypes described below. For each subtype of GBS, the interval between the first appearance of symptoms and the nadir of weakness is between 12 hours and 28 days. This is followed in all subtypes by a clinical plateau with stabilization at the nadir of symptoms, or subsequent improvement without significant relapse. Death may occur without a clinical plateau. Treatment related fluctuations in all subtypes of GBS can occur within 9 weeks of GBS symptom onset and recurrence of symptoms after this time frame would not be consistent with GBS.

    (ii) The most common subtype in North America and Europe, comprising more than 90 percent of cases, is acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP) which has the pathologic and electrodiagnostic features of focal demyelination of motor and sensory peripheral nerves and nerve roots. Another subtype called acute motor axonal neuropathy (AMAN) is generally seen in other parts of the world and is predominated by axonal damage that primarily affects motor nerves. AMAN lacks features of demyelination. Another less common subtype of GBS includes acute motor and sensory neuropathy (AMSAN), which is an axonal form of GBS that is similar to AMAN, but also affects the sensory nerves and roots. AIDP, AMAN, and AMSAN are typically characterized by symmetric motor flaccid weakness, sensory abnormalities, and/or autonomic dysfunction caused by autoimmune damage to peripheral nerves and nerve roots. The diagnosis of AIDP, AMAN, and AMSAN requires bilateral flaccid limb weakness and decreased or absent deep tendon reflexes in weak limbs; a monophasic illness pattern; an interval between onset and nadir of weakness between 12 hours and 28 days; subsequent clinical plateau (the clinical plateau leads to either stabilization at the nadir of symptoms, or subsequent improvement without significant relapse); and, the absence of an identified more likely alternative diagnosis. Death may occur without a clinical plateau.

    (iii) Fisher syndrome (FS), also known as Miller-Fisher Syndrome, is a subtype of GBS characterized by ataxia, areflexia, and ophthalmoplegia, and overlap between FS and AIDP may be seen with limb weakness. The diagnosis of FS requires bilateral ophthalmoparesis; bilateral reduced or absent tendon reflexes; ataxia; the absence of limb weakness (the presence of limb weakness suggests a diagnosis of AIDP); a monophasic illness pattern; an interval between onset and nadir of weakness between 12 hours and 28 days; subsequent clinical plateau (the clinical plateau leads to either stabilization at the nadir of symptoms, or subsequent improvement without significant relapse); no alteration in consciousness; no corticospinal track signs; and, the absence of an identified more likely alternative diagnosis. Death may occur without a clinical plateau.

    (iv) Evidence that is supportive, but not required, of a diagnosis of all subtypes of GBS includes electrophysiologic findings consistent with GBS or an elevation of cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) protein with a total CSF white blood cell count below 50 cells per microliter. The results of both CSF and electrophysiologic studies are frequently normal in the first week of illness in otherwise typical cases of GBS.

    (v) For GBS to qualify as a Table injury there must not be a more likely alternative diagnosis for the weakness. Exclusionary criteria for the diagnosis of all subtypes of GBS include the ultimate diagnosis of any of the following conditions: Chronic immune demyelinating polyradiculopathy (“CIDP”), carcinomatous meningitis, brain stem encephalitis (other than Bickerstaff brainstem encephalitis), myelitis, spinal cord infarct, spinal cord compression, anterior horn cell diseases such as polio or West Nile virus infection, subacute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, multiple sclerosis, cauda equina compression, metabolic conditions such as hypermagnesemia or hypophosphatemia, tick paralysis, heavy metal toxicity (such as arsenic, gold, or thallium), drug-induced neuropathy (such as vincristine, platinum compounds, or nitrofurantoin), porphyria, critical illness neuropathy, vasculitis, diphtheria, myasthenia gravis, organophosphate poisoning, botulism, critical illness myopathy, polymyositis, dermatomyositis, hypokalemia, or hyperkalemia. The above list is not exhaustive.

    (5) Tracheal stenosis. (i) Postintubation tracheal stenosis means an iatrogenic (caused by medical treatment) and symptomatic stricture of the airway (narrowing of the windpipe) resulting from:

    (A) Trauma or necrosis from an endotracheal tube; or

    (B) Stomal injury from a tracheostomy; or

    (C) A combination of the two.

    (ii) Tracheal stenosis or narrowing due to tumors (malignant or benign), infections of the trachea (such as tuberculosis, fungal diseases), radiotherapy, tracheal surgery, trauma, congenital, and inflammatory or autoimmune diseases will not be considered post-intubation tracheal stenosis. Post-intubation tracheal stenosis requires either tracheostomy with placement of a tracheostomy tube or endotracheal intubation. Diagnosis requires symptoms of upper airway obstruction such as stridor (inspiratory wheeze) or exertional dyspnea (increased shortness of breath with exertion), and positive radiologic studies showing abnormal narrowing of the trachea or bronchoscopic evaluation that demonstrates abnormal narrowing.

    (6) Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP) and Ventilator-Associated Tracheobronchitis (VAT). (i) VAP is defined as an iatrogenic pneumonia caused by the medical treatment of mechanical ventilation. Similarly, VAT is an iatrogenic infection of the trachea and/or bronchi caused by mechanical ventilation. The initial manifestation of VAP and VAT must occur more than 48 hours after intubation (placement of the breathing tube) and up to 48 hours after extubation (removal of the breathing tube). VAP will be considered to be present when the patient demonstrates a new or progressive radiographic infiltrate that is in the lungs and consistent with pneumonia, fever, leukocytosis (increased white blood cell count) or leucopenia (decreased white blood cell count), purulent (containing pus) tracheal secretions from a tracheal aspirate, and a positive lower respiratory tract culture. The positive lower respiratory tract culture is a diagnostic requirement only if there has not been a change in antibiotics in the 72 hours prior to collection of the culture. In addition, a tracheal aspirate that does not demonstrate bacteria or inflammatory cells in a patient without a change in antibiotics in the previous 72 hours is unlikely to be VAP and shall not be considered a condition set forth in the Table.

    (ii) VAT will be considered to be present when the patient demonstrates fever, leukocytosis or leukopenia, purulent tracheal secretions, and a positive tracheal aspirate culture in the absence of a change of antibiotics within the 72 hours prior to culture. Tracheal colonization with microorganisms is common in intubated patients, but in the absence of clinical findings is not a sign of VAT.

    (7) Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury (VILI). VILI results from mechanical trauma such as volutrauma leading to rupture of alveoli (air sacs in the lungs where oxygen and carbon dioxide are exchanged with the blood) with subsequent abnormal leakage of air. VILI manifests as iatrogenic pneumothorax (abnormal air from alveolar rupture in the pleural space), pneumomediastinum (abnormal air from alveolar rupture in the mediastinum (middle part of the chest between the lungs)), pulmonary interstitial emphysema (abnormal air in the lung interstitial space between the alveoli), subpleural air cysts (an extreme form of pulmonary emphysema where the abnormal air in the interstitial space has pooled into larger pockets), subcutaneous emphysema (abnormal air from alveolar rupture that has dissected into the skin), pneumopericardium (abnormal air from alveolar rupture that has traveled to the pericardium (covering of the heart)), pneumoperitoneum (abnormal air from alveolar rupture that has moved into the abdominal space), or systemic air embolism (abnormal air from alveolar rupture that has moved into the blood). To qualify as Table injuries, these manifestations must occur in patients who are being mechanically ventilated at the time of initial manifestation of the VILI.

    (8) Bleeding events. Bleeding events are defined as excessive or abnormal bleeding in patients who are under the pharmacologic effects of anticoagulant therapy provided for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment.

    (c) Covered countermeasures. The Office of the Secretary publishes Secretarial declarations on the following covered countermeasures in the Federal Register:

    (1) Pandemic influenza vaccines;

    (2) Tamiflu;

    (3) Relenza;

    (4) Peramivir;

    (5) Personal respiratory protection devices;

    (6) Respiratory support devices;

    (7) Diagnostic testing devices.

    [FR Doc. 2015-19228 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2014-0008; 4500030113] RIN 1018-BA32 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 4(d) Rule for the Georgetown Salamander AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, finalize a rule under authority of section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, that provides measures that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Georgetown salamander (Eurycea naufragia), a species that occurs in Texas. This final 4(d) rule will provide the Service the opportunity to work cooperatively, in partnership with the local community and State agencies, on conservation of the Georgetown salamander and the ecosystems on which it depends.

    This 4(d) rule is necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Georgetown salamander because it strengthens water quality protection measures throughout the species' range, allows for consideration of new information to optimize conservation measures, and furthers conservation partnerships that can be leveraged to improve the status of the Georgetown salamander.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective September 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    This final rule, the final environmental assessment, and a list of references cited are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2014-0008, or by mail from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Comments and materials we received are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov. All of the comments, materials, and documentation that we considered in this rulemaking are available by appointment, during normal business hours at the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet Rd., Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; telephone 512-490-0057; facsimile 512-490-0974. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Previous Federal Actions

    On August 22, 2012, we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (77 FR 50768) to list the Georgetown salamander (Eurycea naufragia), Salado salamander (Eurycea chisholmensis), Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea tonkawae), and Austin blind salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis) as endangered species and to designate critical habitat for these species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1533 et seq.). The Federal lists of endangered and threatened species and other protective regulations for listed species under the Act are in part 17 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). On February 24, 2014, we published a final determination to list the Georgetown salamander and the Salado salamander as threatened species under the Act (79 FR 10236) and a proposed rule under section 4(d) of the Act (a proposed 4(d) rule) for the Georgetown salamander (79 FR 10077) at 50 CFR 17.43. On April 9, 2015, we revised the proposed 4(d) rule for the Georgetown salamander and reopened the public comment period for 30 days, ending May 11, 2015 (80 FR 19050). Please see the final listing determination (79 FR 10236) for additional information concerning previous Federal actions for the Georgetown salamander.

    Background

    The Georgetown salamander is entirely aquatic and depends on water from the Edwards Aquifer in sufficient quantity and quality to meet the species' life-history requirements for survival, growth, and reproduction. Degradation of habitat, in the form of reduced water quality and quantity and disturbance of spring sites, is the main threat to this species. For more information on the Georgetown salamander and its habitat, please refer to the February 24, 2014, final listing determination (79 FR 10236).

    The Act does not specify particular prohibitions, or exceptions to those prohibitions, for threatened species. Instead, under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior has the discretion to issue such regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species. The Secretary also has the discretion to prohibit by regulation, with respect to any threatened wildlife species, any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1) of the Act. Exercising this discretion, the Service developed general prohibitions (50 CFR 17.31) and exceptions to those prohibitions (50 CFR 17.32) under the Act that apply to most threatened wildlife species. Alternately, for other threatened species, under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act, the Service may develop specific prohibitions and exceptions that are tailored to the specific conservation needs of the species. In such cases, some of the prohibitions and authorizations under 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 may be appropriate for the species and incorporated into a rule under section 4(d) of the Act. However, these rules, known as 4(d) rules, will also include provisions that are tailored to the specific conservation needs of the threatened species and may be more or less restrictive than the general provisions at 50 CFR 17.31.

    Summary of Changes From the Revised Proposed Rule

    Based on information we received in both public comment periods on the proposed 4(d) rule (see Summary of Comments and Recommendations), we revised the provisions of the 4(d) rule to provide greater clarity around the activities that are covered and not covered by this rule.

    Provisions of the 4(d) Rule for the Georgetown Salamander

    Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary may publish a rule that modifies the standard protections for threatened species and that contains prohibitions tailored to the conservation of the species and that are determined to be necessary and advisable. Under this 4(d) rule, the Service provides that all of the prohibitions under 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 are necessary and advisable and, therefore, apply to the Georgetown salamander, except as noted below. This 4(d) rule will not remove or alter in any way the consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act.

    City of Georgetown Unified Development Code (UDC)

    For activities outside of habitat occupied by the Georgetown salamander, the final 4(d) rule provides that take of Georgetown salamanders that is incidental to regulated activities (as defined in title 30, Texas Administrative Code, section 213.3(28)) that are conducted consistent with the water quality regulations contained in chapter 11.07 of the City of Georgetown Unified Development Code (UDC 11.07) (https://udc.georgetown.org/) will not be prohibited under the Act. The water quality regulations in UDC 11.07 were finalized on February 24, 2015. Chapter 11.07 of the UDC describes stream and spring buffers, water quality best management practices, and geologic assessments that are required for property development within the Northern Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone and the City of Georgetown.

    “Regulated activities” are defined in title 30, Texas Administrative Code, section 213.3(28) as any construction-related or post-construction activities on the Recharge Zone of the Edwards Aquifer having the potential for polluting the Edwards Aquifer and hydrologically connected surface streams. “Regulated activities” do not include the clearing of vegetation without soil disturbance, agricultural activities, oil and gas activities, routine maintenance of existing structures that does not involve additional site disturbance, and construction of single-family residences on lots larger than 2 hectares (ha) (5 acres (ac)). More specific details on spring and stream buffers can be found in sections 11.07.003A. and B. of the UDC.

    When a property owner submits a development application for a regulated activity on a tract of land located over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, that individual is required to submit a geologic assessment to the City of Georgetown. The geologic assessment identifies and describes all springs and streams on any subject property, and the UDC establishes buffer zones around identified springs and streams. For springs, the buffer encompasses 50 meters (m) (164 feet (ft)) extending from the approximate center of the spring outlet that is identified in a geologic assessment. For streams, the boundaries of the buffer must coincide with either the boundaries of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) one percent floodplain or a calculated one percent floodplain, whichever is smaller. In the absence of a FEMA floodplain or calculated one percent floodplain, these stream buffers may be no smaller than 61 m (200 ft) wide with at least 23 m (75 ft) from the centerline of the stream. Section 11.07.003 of the UDC states that no “regulated activities” may be conducted within the spring and stream buffers.

    In addition to the establishment of these spring and stream buffers, the UDC outlines water quality best management practices designed to minimize sediment runoff, increase the removal of total suspended solids, prevent an increase in flow rates, and ensure spill containment for new or expanded roadways. These regulations in chapter 11.07 of the UDC are designed to reduce water quality degradation that may occur as a result of development. By reducing further water quality degradation that may result from development, these protective measures are also expected to reduce degradation to Georgetown salamander habitat that may occur.

    The UDC 11.07 also outlines exemptions from the requirement to prepare a geologic assessment, the process by which a landowner may request a variance to the spring and stream buffer requirements, and exemptions to the spring and stream buffer requirements of section 11.07.003. Small (less than 2-ha (5-ac)) single-family and two-family residential developments are exempt from submitting a geologic assessment; however, these developments are required to implement UDC water quality measures. Landowners may request to the City of Georgetown a variance from the spring and stream buffer requirements in UDC 11.07 if: The variance is not contrary to the public interest; due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship; and the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done, in accordance with UDC section 2.05.010.A.6. These variances and exemptions apply only to sites not occupied by Georgetown salamanders.

    Properties with a site occupied by the Georgetown salamander are exempt from the spring and stream buffer requirements in chapter 11.07. Rather, UDC Appendix A outlines conservation measures (which are voluntary under the UDC) to be implemented when undertaking regulated activities that occur on a tract of land with an occupied site or within 984 ft (300 m) of an occupied site. An “occupied site” is defined in the UDC as any spring identified as a critical habitat unit by the Service for the Georgetown salamander and includes the following sites: Cobb Well, Cobb Springs, Cowen Creek Spring, Bat Well Cave, Walnut Spring, Twin Spring, Hogg Hollow Spring, Cedar Hollow Spring, Knight (Crockett Garden) Spring, Cedar Breaks Hiking Trail Spring, Water Tank Cave, Avant's (Capitol Aggregates), Buford Hollow Springs, Swinbank Spring, Shadow Canyon, San Gabriel Spring, and Garey Ranch Springs. For the purposes of this 4(d) rule, however, we define an occupied site to be any site where Georgetown salamanders have been found in the past or new sites found in the future.

    For activities involving habitat occupied by the Georgetown salamander, the final 4(d) rule provides that take of the Georgetown salamander that is incidental to regulated activities that are conducted consistent with the guidelines described in Appendix A of the UDC will not be prohibited under the Act. Similar to chapter 11.07 of the UDC, the guidelines in Appendix A establish stream and spring buffers and allowable activities within those buffers; however, the measures described in Appendix A create larger, more protective buffers than those that appear in chapter 11 for unoccupied sites. First, Appendix A establishes a “No-Disturbance Zone” in the stream or waterway into which a spring drains directly; this zone extends 80 m (264 ft) upstream and downstream from the approximate center of the spring outlet of an occupied site and is bounded by the top of the bank. No regulated activities may occur within the “No-Disturbance Zone.” In addition, Appendix A establishes a “Minimal-Disturbance Zone” for the subsurface area that drains to the spring(s) at an occupied site; this zone consists of the area within 300 m (984 ft) of the approximate center of the spring outlet of an occupied site, except those areas within the “No-Disturbance Zone.” Most regulated activities are also prohibited in the “Minimal-Disturbance Zone,” but single-family developments, limited parks and open space development, and wastewater infrastructure will be allowed. For additional details on the buffers around occupied sites and prohibited actions, please refer to the UDC Appendix A.

    In general, this 4(d) rule does not apply to deviations from the water quality measures in UDC 11.07 and Appendix A. Any variance from the measures and guidelines described in UDC 11.07 (non-occupied sites) is not covered by this final 4(d) rule, unless that variance has been granted by the City of Georgetown. In addition, variances from the spring and stream buffer requirements of UDC 11.07 may be granted by the City of Georgetown only if the variance is not contrary to the public interest, if due to special conditions a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship, and if the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done, in accordance with UDC section 2.05.010.A.6. Projects involving habitat occupied by the Georgetown salamander (which are not eligible for variances) where the project proponent chooses not to follow the voluntary guidelines in Appendix A of the UDC, may work with the Service to pursue take coverage by developing a habitat conservation plan (HCP) in accordance with section 10 of the Act.

    Section 11.07.008 of the UDC also establishes an Adaptive Management Working Group (Working Group) that is responsible for reviewing data on a regular basis and making recommendations for specific changes in the management directions related to the voluntary conservation measures for occupied sites in Appendix A. Adaptive management for preservation of the Georgetown salamander is one of the duties tasked to the Working Group. The adaptive management described in the UDC specifically applies to the guidelines (i.e., conservation measures) found in Appendix A; therefore, the guidelines described in Appendix A may change over time if they would result in equal or better conservation benefits to the Georgetown salamander, as determined by the Service. For example, if experience gained during implementation of the guidelines or new scientific information suggests that a buffer distance was either too small, or larger than needed, to achieve the intended benefits, that buffer distance could be modified. However, the activities covered under Appendix A (i.e., regulated activities) are not subject to change under the adaptive management provisions described in the UDC. In other words, exercising of adaptive management under this 4(d) rule cannot expand the scope of the covered activities beyond regulated activities (as defined in title 30, Texas Administrative Code, section 213.3(28)). The Working Group will develop an annual report regarding the preservation of the Georgetown salamander, continuous monitoring of the Georgetown salamander, assessment of research priorities, and the effectiveness of the water quality regulations and guidelines. Copies of the February 24, 2015, dated UDC 11.07 and Appendix A are available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2014-0008. Any revisions to Appendix A will be made available at https://udc.georgetown.org/udc-amendments/.

    Determination

    Section 4(d) of the Act states that “the Secretary shall issue such regulations as [s]he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation” of species listed as threatened species. Conservation is defined in the Act to mean “to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to [the Act] are no longer necessary.”

    The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the conservation of a species. For example, the Secretary may find that it is necessary and advisable not to include a taking prohibition, or to include a limited taking prohibition. See Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); Washington Environmental Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, and 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash. 2002). In addition, as affirmed in State of Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988), the rule need not address all the threats to the species. As noted by Congress when the Act was initially enacted, “once an animal is on the threatened list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available to him [her] with regard to the permitted activities for those species. [S]he may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of such species,” or she may choose to forbid both taking and importation but allow the transportation of such species, as long as the prohibitions, and exceptions to those prohibitions, will “serve to conserve, protect, or restore the species concerned in accordance with the purposes of the Act” (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).

    Section 9 prohibitions make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (including harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or attempt any of these), import or export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any wildlife species listed as an endangered species, without written authorization. It also is illegal under section 9(a)(1) of the Act to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that is taken illegally. Prohibited actions consistent with section 9 of the Act are outlined for threatened wildlife in 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b). For the Georgetown salamander, the Service has determined that a 4(d) rule tailored to its specific conservation needs is necessary and advisable, as discussed below. This final 4(d) rule provides that all prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b) will apply to the Georgetown salamander, except as described below.

    Under this final 4(d) rule, incidental take of the Georgetown salamander will not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act if the take occurs on any non-Federal land and from regulated activities that are conducted consistent with the water quality protection measures contained in chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the City of Georgetown Unified Development Code. This final 4(d) rule refers to the definition of “regulated activities” in title 30, Texas Administrative Code, section 213.3(28), which is any construction-related or post-construction activities on the recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer having the potential for polluting the Edwards Aquifer and hydrologically connected surface streams. We have determined that this provision is necessary and advisable for the conservation of the Georgetown salamander, as explained in the paragraphs that follow.

    The local community in the City of Georgetown and Williamson County has expressed a desire to design and implement a local solution to conserving the natural resources in their county, including water quality and the Georgetown salamander (City of Georgetown Resolution No. 082812-N). All currently known locations for the Georgetown salamander are within the jurisdiction of the City of Georgetown, making the city an appropriate entity to manage conservation measures that protect Georgetown salamander habitat. Because impervious cover levels within most of the watersheds known to be occupied by the Georgetown salamander are still relatively low, a window of opportunity exists to design and implement measures to protect water quality and, therefore, conserve the salamander. The City and County's approach for accomplishing this conservation goal includes regulatory and non-regulatory actions, as described below. Regulatory actions include passage of the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone Water Quality Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2013-59) by the Georgetown City Council on December 20, 2013, and the revisions to their UDC (chapter 11.07) finalized on February 24, 2015. Their approach also includes non-regulatory actions, such as the technical guidance provided in Appendix A of the UDC, which outlines additional conservation measures to protect water quality and to avoid direct destruction of occupied sites.

    Habitat modification, in the form of degraded water quality and quantity and disturbance of spring sites, is the primary threat to the Georgetown salamander. The conservation measures in both chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the UDC provide a variety of water quality protection measures, such as the creation of buffers around springs and streams where regulated activities are prohibited, designed to lessen impacts to the water quality of springs and streams in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. The UDC is applied throughout the watersheds that contain the Georgetown salamander. Absent this 4(d) rule, the status quo would be to address development impacts through traditional tools (that is, sections 7 and 10 of the Act) that are generally applied at the project-by-project scale. The watershed-level approach in UDC 11.07 and Appendix A works to avoid incremental environmental degradation that may go unnoticed on a small, individual project scale. Through this final 4(d) rule, we can achieve a greater level of conservation for the Georgetown salamander than we could without it because it encourages rangewide implementation of water quality protective measures that are aimed at addressing the primary threat of habitat modification and degradation for Georgetown salamanders. The majority of Georgetown salamanders occur within 164 ft (50 m) of a spring outlet (Pierce et al. 2010, p. 294; TPWD 2011, p. 3); this coincides with the spring and stream buffers for unoccupied sites. We also believe the salamander populations exist through underground conduits that may extend 300 m (984 ft) around cave or spring points; this area coincides with the size of the “Minimal-Disturbance Zones” for occupied sites. By limiting development activities within these respective areas, the measures in the UDC 11.07 and Appendix A are expected to limit water quality degradation in areas that may provide suitable surface or subsurface habitat for the Georgetown salamander now and in the future.

    Although the areas that provide recharge and the source water for specific areas occupied by the salamander have not been precisely delineated, the watershed-level approach makes it likely that unknown recharge areas are receiving water quality protection under the UDC. This is because the UDC prohibits regulated activities within buffers around all streams located within the recharge zone and the City of Georgetown jurisdiction. In karst aquifer systems, streams often contain important recharge features called swallow holes or swallets, which allow the stream to continue flowing underground in a conduit and feed the larger aquifer or even small springs directly (White 1998, p. 172). For example, in the Barton Springs Segment of the Edwards Aquifer, hydrologists generally agree that most of the aquifer's recharge comes via these streambed recharge features (Mahler et al. 2011, p. 4). Although similar research is lacking in the Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer, it is likely that the aquifer feeding Georgetown salamander habitat works in a similar way because both areas are karst aquifer systems, thereby making the stream buffers of the UDC crucial in protecting groundwater quality.

    This watershed-level approach also includes an adaptive management component that will allow the Adaptive Management Working Group (Working Group) to evaluate the response of salamander populations to management actions and quickly respond and recommend adjustments, if necessary, to management strategies to protect water quality consistent with conserving the Georgetown salamander. The UDC formalizes the Working Group with representatives from the City of Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, university scientists, private real estate developers, and the Service. The role of the Working Group is to:

    • Review scientific information to understand the latest science on watershed management practices and the conservation of the Georgetown salamander;

    • Recommend support for additional Georgetown salamander scientific studies and oversee a long-term monitoring program to ensure that salamander abundance at monitored locations is stable or improving;

    • Conduct and evaluate water quality trend analysis as part of its long-term monitoring program to ensure water quality conditions do not decline and, in turn, result in impacts to salamander abundance; and

    • Develop recommendations for changes to the UDC Appendix A for occupied sites if scientific and monitoring information indicates that water quality and salamander protection measures need changes to minimize impacts to salamander populations and to help attain the goal of species conservation.

    While a window of opportunity exists to design and implement conservation measures to conserve the Georgetown salamander, human population levels and development are expected to increase rapidly in Williamson County (Texas State Data Center 2012, pp. 166-167). The success of the local community's efforts depends on their robust adaptive management program. The program is designed to monitor and quickly assess the effectiveness of the identified conservation measures and strategies and to be able to respond quickly and adapt the conservation measures and strategies to provide equal or better conservation benefits to the Georgetown salamander. The adaptive management approach will ensure that the water quality protective measures are serving their intended purpose of conserving the Georgetown salamander, thereby providing for the conservation of the species. Changes to UDC Appendix A that are agreed upon by the Working Group through the adaptive management process, provide equal or greater conservation benefits to the Georgetown salamander, and approved by the Service would be covered under this 4(d) rule.

    By not prohibiting incidental take resulting from regulated activities conducted in accordance with the UDC 11.07 and Appendix A, the Service is supporting and encouraging a local solution to conservation of the Georgetown salamander. This final 4(d) rule will provide the Service the opportunity to work cooperatively, in partnership with the local community and State agencies, on conservation of the Georgetown salamander and the ecosystems on which it depends. Leveraging our conservation capacity with that of the State, local governments, and the conservation community at large may make it possible to attain biological outcomes larger than those we could attain ourselves due to the watershed-scale protection the UDC requires. Further, our local partners are best able to design solutions that minimize socioeconomic impacts, thereby encouraging participation in measures that will protect water quality and conserve the Georgetown salamander. In addition, by not prohibiting incidental take resulting from regulated activities conducted in accordance with UDC 11.07 and Appendix A, the Service is providing a streamlining mechanism for compliance with the Act for those project proponents who comply with the protective measures in UDC 11.07 and Appendix A and, thus, are considered covered by this final 4(d) rule. Project proponents who comply with these protective measures, as outlined in this final rule, can implement their projects without any potential delay from seeking incidental take coverage from the Service, while also minimizing water quality degradation. This approach provides greater regulatory certainty and streamlines compliance for project proponents and thus is likely to result in increased implementation of water quality protective measures that benefit salamanders.

    In summary, this 4(d) rule is necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Georgetown salamander because it strengthens water quality protection measures throughout the species' range, allows for consideration of new information to optimize conservation measures, and furthers conservation partnerships that can be leveraged to improve the status of the Georgetown salamander. Implementation of water quality protection measures throughout the range of the species will provide greater protection for the species than would project-by-project efforts, and provide protections to recharge areas that we may not be able to protect under our traditional tools (e.g., sections 7 and 10 of the Act). Further, water quality protection is a crucial element of conservation for the Georgetown salamander. Because the best available information does not allow us to determine the exact amount of water quality protection needed to satisfy the life requirements of the Georgetown salamander, the adaptive management approach incorporated into UDC Appendix A provides a pathway to achieving our conservation goals for the species in the face of scientific uncertainty. Finally, this approach also encourages further cooperation between the Service and local government entities, enhancing our ability to work collaboratively with partners to further Georgetown salamander conservation.

    If an activity that may affect the species is not regulated by UDC 11.07 or is not in accordance with UDC 11.07 and Appendix A, or a person or entity is not in compliance with all terms and conditions of UDC 11.07 and Appendix A and the activity would result in an act that would be otherwise prohibited under 50 CFR 17.31, then the general provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 for threatened species apply. In such circumstances, the prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31 would be in effect, and authorization under 50 CFR 17.32 would be required. In addition, nothing in this 4(d) rule affects in any way other provisions of the Act, such as the designation of critical habitat under section 4, recovery planning provisions of section 4(f), and consultation requirements under section 7.

    Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from the public on the proposed 4(d) rule for the Georgetown salamander during two comment periods: February 24 to April 25, 2014, and April 9 to May 11, 2015. We also contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed 4(d) rule, draft environmental assessment, and chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the UDC during the respective comment periods.

    Over the course of the two comment periods, we received 39 comment submissions. All substantive information provided during these comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this final rule or is addressed below. Comments from peer reviewers and State agencies are grouped separately.

    Peer Review Comments

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from five knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that are familiar with the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and conservation biology principles. We received responses from two of the five peer reviewers. We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information. These comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

    (1) Comment: An additional buffer specifically associated with where Georgetown salamanders are found, to minimize direct impacts by people (and domestic pets), is critical. Fencing is often an effective way to mark the boundaries (and potentially reduce their footprint) of such a protective buffer.

    Our response: We agree that additional measures to protect Georgetown salamanders from the threat of trampling by people, pets, feral hogs, and livestock may contribute to the conservation of the species. However, as noted above, this 4(d) rule does not provide incidental take authority for all types of activities that may constitute take or harm of Georgetown salamanders. Rather, the 4(d) rule will promote the conservation of the species by helping to alleviate negative impacts that can occur from the threat of water quality degradation as a result of urbanization.

    (2) Comment: I am uncertain as to whether the fixed-width buffers are appropriate in all localities to achieve the desired level of protection. Protection of surface and groundwater resources in karstified area can be quite challenging, and, therefore, simplified metrics such as horizontal setbacks may not achieve the desired results. Adequate buffers would require an understanding of both the detailed hydrogeology and the dispersal patterns of the listed species. For the former, I would expect that areas upgradient of springs (a more immediate source of recharge) would be more important than downgradient areas, all else being equal, to the maintenance of adequate springflow. For the latter, I would expect that downgradient areas (where the emergent surface water flows) would be more important than upgradient areas for the direct support of habitat. How these two attributes interact to define a truly “critical” area of influence is undoubtedly complex, and a fixed-width buffer may be the best alternative at the present time. However, I would hope that improved understanding of these interactions would be a focus of the adaptive management effort.

    Our response: We agree and expect that improving the understanding of the detailed hydrogeology and dispersal patterns of the species will be a focus of the Working Group. Please see our response to Comment #8.

    (3) Comment: The stormwater-management requirements for protection of the Edwards Aquifer (UDC) are laudable, but they lag behind the current understanding, and readily available applications, of what constitutes stormwater “best management practices” of the 21st century. Particularly given the importance of maintaining aquifer recharge, I would expect to see on-site retention of the 95th percentile storm (as is already mandated for federal facilities) rather than just 85 percent reduction in total suspended solids.

    Our response: Because the on-site retention of the 95th percentile storm is a different type of stormwater measurement than 85 percent reduction in total suspended solids, it is difficult to compare the two in terms of water quality protection. However, we recognize that there may be more stringent water quality regulations that aim to remove more contaminants from stormwater runoff than the UDC. The adaptive management process will monitor the status of the species in response to implementation of the UDC and modify the regulations if more protective measures are needed to further reduce impacts to the species. At this time, we have determined that the UDC and Appendix A, which include the 85 percent reduction, are necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species (see Determination section above).

    (4) Comment: I recommend that there should be no exemptions to the water quality regulations. Every proposed change in land use should have some form of review to ensure compatibility with management goals.

    Our response: In general, deviations from the water quality regulations described in UDC 11.07 and the voluntary guidelines described in Appendix A of the UDC will not be covered under this 4(d) rule. Non-regulated activities, for example, are exempt from UDC 11.07 and are, therefore, not covered under this 4(d) rule. However, variances from UDC 11.07 may be granted by the City of Georgetown in special circumstances. These variances from the spring and stream buffer requirements apply only to non-occupied sites and undergo review by the City of Georgetown staff and may be granted only if the variance is not contrary to the public interest, due to special conditions a literal enforcement of this regulation would result in unnecessary hardship, and the spirit of the regulation is observed and substantial justice is done, in accordance with UDC Section 2.05.010.A.6. No variances to Appendix A, which covers all occupied sites, of the UDC will be covered under this 4(d) rule. Individual variances to UDC 11.07 that have been approved by the City of Georgetown can be tracked by the Working Group and incorporated into their discussions and recommendations on the adaptive management needed to attain conservation goals.

    (5) Comment: Geologic and soil studies should be performed by the community to delineate locations where shallow soil cover prevents conventional onsite wastewater disposal. Green infrastructure and low-impact development should be required everywhere in Georgetown, Texas. This includes new development, redevelopment, and restoration projects.

    Our response: We agree that groundwater vulnerability studies and low-impact development will be beneficial for the Georgetown salamander and its habitat. These are helpful suggestions for the Working Group to consider as they evaluate the effectiveness of the UDC conservation measures.

    (6) Comment: The community should track water quality and flow at selected springs and streams in order to develop long-term databases able to detect changes.

    Our response: We agree that water quality and quantity monitoring conducted in a manner that is able to detect changes needs to be a priority for the Working Group. Williamson County is currently monitoring salamander abundance and basic water chemistry (for example, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and specific conductance) at three sites with plans to add more monitoring sites in the future.

    Comments From States

    (7) Comment: We urge the Service to finalize and implement this proposed rule as efficiently as possible while following a transparent process in order to provide regulatory certainty.

    Our response: By requesting input from the public on this 4(d) rule during two public comment periods, one 60-day and a second 30-day, we believe the rulemaking process has been transparent.

    (8) Comment: Spring buffers and other water quality protection policies should be aligned with the hydrogeology that most directly influences conditions for the species' survival. It also appears that the current buffer strategy may unduly restrict landowners in some areas that do not influence survival conditions for the species while potentially not affording protection to other areas that do influence survival conditions. We believe the proposed rule affords the [Adaptive Management] Working Group the latitude to study these spring buffers and offer alternative recommendations if new science dictates that changes should be made.

    Our response: The specific hydrogeology (for example, recharge area) for each site occupied by the Georgetown salamander has not been determined. The Act requires that we use the best available information and does not require that we conduct research to develop new science. In the absence of this information, we believe a fixed-width buffer is the best alternative for protecting these sites. As new information is discovered, the conservation measures can be modified through the adaptive management process.

    (9) Comment: Conservation measures detailed in the UDC are limited to “Occupied Sites” with currently known populations. Conservation measures would not apply to newly discovered occupied sites. Since newly discovered sites could be important to the recovery of the species, we request that the Service clarify the applicability of the 4(d) rule to these sites and the role the Working Group should play in this regard.

    Our response: In this final rule, we have clarified that any site determined to be occupied by Georgetown salamanders in the future will be considered “occupied” and the protective measures outlined in Appendix A of the UDC must be followed in order to be covered under this 4(d) rule. We recommend that the Working Group make efforts to survey suitable habitat within the range of the Georgetown salamander to identify all sites occupied by the species.

    (10) Comment: It is unclear whether a landowner owning a newly discovered site occupied by Georgetown salamanders outside the City of Georgetown's extra-territorial jurisdiction would be covered for incidental take if [s]he were to conduct activities consistent with the conservation measures contained in the UDC. Regulatory predictability and incidental take coverage for all affected landowners are important for the ultimate recovery of the species.

    Our response: Regulated activities located outside of the City of Georgetown's jurisdiction are not covered by the UDC. Therefore, only incidental take from those activities that are in the City of Georgetown's jurisdiction are potentially exempt from take prohibitions through this 4(d) rule. All currently known Georgetown salamander sites are covered by the UDC.

    Public Comments

    (11) Comment: The proposed revised 4(d) rule states that the boundaries of the stream buffer coincides with the boundaries of the FEMA or calculated floodplain, but may be no smaller than [61 m (200 ft)] in width. It should be noted that, while the stream buffer varies depending on the size of the stream (size of the stream is based on the size of the drainage area, which influences the size of the floodplain), there may be situations under the UDC where the stream buffer is smaller than [61 m (200 ft)] in width.

    Our response: Per the UDC 11.07, only stream buffers without FEMA or calculated floodplains may be no smaller than 61 m (200 ft) in width. We have made the appropriate clarification in this final rule.

    (12) Comment: The proposed exemption from prohibitions, as it will be outlined in § 17.43(e)(2) of [title 50 of] the CFR, states that “incidental take of the Georgetown salamander will not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act if the take occurs on privately owned, State, or county land. . . .” This exemption must include, at a minimum, city-owned property.

    Our response: We have edited the exemption to include all non-Federal land.

    (13) Comment: The proposed rule, if finalized, could not be amended substantially unless and until the Service allowed for public comment and input. Public input would not be allowed to a greater degree in connection with an incidental take permit than it has been in connection with the proposed rule.

    Our response: This is correct. Future changes to the content of this 4(d) rule require a public notice and comment period. However, future changes related to the conservation of the Georgetown salamander may be made to the conservation measures in UDC Appendix A, without public notice and comment, if they are agreed upon by the Working Group through the adaptive management process outlined in the UDC, provide equal or greater conservation benefits to the Georgetown salamander, and are approved by the Service.

    (14) Comment: The proposed rule does not exempt any set of activities in the “red zone.” The proposed rule does not pick apart who is regulated or not. Rather, it focuses on actual implementation of water quality measures consistent with those set forth in the UDC and listed in the proposed rule. A non-regulated entity can presumably meet the standard set forth in the proposed rule, not because such an activity is exempt from regulations, but because it would have affirmatively implemented the water quality measure set forth in the proposed rule and UDC. While it is true that the UDC applies only to regulated activities, the exemption from take in the proposed rule applies to all activities (and only those activities), regulated or not, that are consistent with the conservation measures in the UDC; that is, activities for which the project proponent has performed a geologic assessment, abided by the limitations described in the UDC for no-disturbance and minimal-disturbance zones, established buffers around springs and streams, etc.

    Our response: The UDC 11.07 and Appendix A were specifically designed for regulated activities. Other kinds of non-regulated activities could have different impacts not addressed with this set of measures. Non-regulated activities that voluntarily follow the UDC 11.07 or Appendix A are not covered by this final 4(d) rule, and project proponents may choose to work with the Service to obtain take coverage.

    (15) Comment: The Service should permit take under section 10 rather than adopt a special 4(d) rule because the resulting HCP cannot be weakened through amendment (unlike the City of Georgetown UDC), the section 10 process provides greater protections for the salamanders compared to the City of Georgetown UDC, and the process provides an open process in which the public can be involved.

    Our response: Section 10 permits are voluntary, are tailored towards individual applicants, would only cover known occupied sites, and have different criteria for permit issuance than the Act requires for issuance of a 4(d) rule. It is not certain that the Service would receive applications for section 10 permits that would provide greater protections for the Georgetown salamander over the entire range of the species. The 4(d) rule provides a landscape-level approach that is consistently implemented throughout the range of the Georgetown salamander, including unoccupied sites.

    While it is true that the conservation measures in UDC Appendix A may be revised, those changes would not be covered under this 4(d) rule unless they are agreed upon by the Working Group through the adaptive management process outlined in the UDC, provide equal or greater conservation benefits to the Georgetown salamander, and are approved by the Service. In addition, we have a “No Surprises” policy for section 10 incidental take permits, which states, if unforeseen circumstances occur during the life of an HCP, the Service will not require additional lands, additional funds, or additional restrictions on lands or other natural resources released for development or use, from any permittee, who in good faith is adequately implementing or has implemented an approved HCP. This policy makes HCPs less flexible in terms of requiring more stringent conservation measures over time in response to new information. Given the amount of uncertainty in how best to protect Georgetown salamander habitat quality at individual sites, the flexibility provided in the adaptive management approach of the UDC is desirable.

    We believe the development of this 4(d) rule has been an open process comparable to that of a section 10 permit process. In addition, the process of amending the UDC is very transparent, involving monthly meetings of the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee that are open to the public with minutes and agendas posted online (https://government.georgetown.org/unified-development-code-advisory-board-2/).

    (16) Comment: The 4(d) rule allows degradation of water quality and, therefore, is not necessary and advisable for the conservation of the Georgetown salamander.

    Our response: The protective measures provided for in the 4(d) rule are intended to address the threat of water quality degradation from urbanization throughout the range of the species. We have found that the 4(d) rule positively contributes to the recovery of the Georgetown salamander by addressing the primary threat to the species and that these measures are “necessary and advisable for the conservation” of the Georgetown salamander (see Determination section above).

    (17) Comment: Numerous activities that may degrade water quality are entirely exempted and, therefore, allowed within the zones and buffers described in the City of Georgetown UDC. The Service should exempt only “regulated activities” because those are the only activities that are actually regulated by the UDC. In this way, threats such as oil and gas activities, agricultural operations, and residential developments on lots greater than 2 ha (5 ac), which are currently unregulated and, therefore, do not contribute to the conservation of the salamander, would not receive the benefit of protection from incidental take.

    Our response: We agree and have clarified this issue in the final 4(d) rule. Also, please see our response to Comment #14.

    (18) Comment: Because the proposed special rule references the Ordinance instead of prescribing all the necessary conservation measures, the City could receive the benefits of protection from section 9 even if the City weakens the Ordinance through amendment. To solve this problem, the Service must use the section 10 process, describe all the necessary conservation measures in the Ordinance, or modify the 4(d) rule to state on its face what is and what is not authorized. At a bare minimum, the agency must specifically reference the version of the Ordinance adopted on December 20, 2013.

    Our response: The final rule clarifies that modifications to UDC Appendix A are covered under the 4(d) rule only if they are agreed upon by the Working Group through the adaptive management process, provide equal or greater conservation benefits to the Georgetown salamander, and are approved by the Service. In order to allow this important adaptive management process to be implemented, we have revised the final 4(d) rule to note that the provisions apply only to Service-endorsed versions of UDC 11.07 and Appendix A.

    (19) Comment: It concerns us that the proposed 4(d) special rule is proceeding without scientific peer review.

    Our response: Although our February 24, 2014, proposed 4(d) rule announced that we were not conducting a peer review, we did conduct a peer review of the proposed 4(d) rule during the second comment period (April 9, 2015, to May 11, 2015). We requested peer review from five water quality protection experts and received reviews from two of the five. The peer reviews, along with the other comments and materials we received, are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2014-0008.

    (20) Comment: The UDC will not protect the quantity of spring flows or threats to water quality from points more distant than 50-300 m (164-984 ft) from spring sites. The UDC on which the proposed 4(d) rule is based does not adequately protect groundwater quality, including recharge features, caves, conduits, or local aquifers. The only substantive contribution made by the UDC is to decrease the probability of wholesale destruction by physical disturbance of occupied springs, but that is just one of many threats to the species.

    Our response: We believe the regulations in the UDC provide some protections to recharge features and water quality in the aquifer as a whole, primarily through the required stream buffers. Although the UDC addresses water quality, regulating every threat to the species is outside the scope of the UDC. In addition, as affirmed in State of Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988), the rule need not address all the threats to the species. Activities that are not covered by this 4(d) rule and that may result in take to the species would need to be covered through sections 7 or 10 of the Act.

    (21) Comment: The UDC does not specify whether any new population discoveries in the future will be treated as “Edwards Springs” with a 50-m (164-ft) buffer or as occupied sites with a 300-m (984-ft) buffer. Furthermore, the UDC does not require population surveys for salamander presence in currently occupied sites or at sites that are currently thought to be unoccupied. Therefore, it provides zero protection for spring sites that are determined in the future to be occupied by salamanders.

    Our response: We have clarified in the final 4(d) rule that any site determined to be occupied by Georgetown salamanders in the future will be considered “occupied” and require the protective measures outlined in Appendix A of the UDC to be covered under this 4(d) rule.

    (22) Comment: Under the 4(d) rule, the Service should allow the City of Georgetown to conduct all technical reviews related to compliance with the UDC, including review and approval of subdivision plats, site plans, or other plans to be in compliance with the UDC. The UDC already requires that all development within the salamanders' known distribution may not begin until a geologic assessment has been conducted and accepted by the City and all project plats, site plans, and infrastructure construction plans reflect occupied springs and required buffers. The City of Georgetown is the logical entity to conduct this review under the UDC, as City staff are the most knowledgeable about local codes, ordinances, and environmental conditions and will ensure technical reviews comply with the UDC.

    Our response: The City of Georgetown will implement and enforce the regulations in chapter 11.07 of the UDC. The City, with assistance of the Working Group (comprising representatives from the City of Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, university scientists, private real estate developers, and the Service), will also review and approve projects that wish to follow the guidelines described in Appendix A of the UDC. The Service has no intention of reviewing individual projects unless the developers wish to obtain an incidental take permit through section 10, or if a Federal nexus exists through section 7, instead of following the UDC.

    (23) Comment: The required buffers will not infringe too seriously on Georgetown residents. The “Minimal-Disturbance Zone” will allow those who wish to live near rivers and springs that are the salamander's habitats to do so, as long as the residential areas are low density. Recreational activities like fishing or boating would not be severely limited either, as the “No-Disturbance Zone” on the river stretches only [80 m (262 ft)] in either direction. This is a significant buffer for the salamander, but it is not a far distance for humans to traverse.

    Our response: The “No-Disturbance Zone” of Appendix A of the UDC does not apply to recreation activities. Only regulated activities (as defined in title 30, Texas Administrative Code, section 213.3(28)) are prohibited within this zone.

    (24) Comment: Stream buffers of at least 23 m (75 ft) may not be large enough to considerably reduce water pollution. Salamanders are affected by slight changes in pH and increase of chemicals in the water. The small population sizes of Georgetown salamanders greatly increase their risk of extinction. Therefore, more studies on the biology and population demographics of this species should be performed before additional urban development is allowed near these crucial habitat sites.

    Our response: The adaptive management process is a component of chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the UDC that allows changes to the regulations in response to new information. If there is adequate evidence that the current regulations are not protective enough for the Georgetown salamander, the Working Group will recommend changes to the UDC that meet the overall management goals.

    (25) Comment: This plan essentially provides a loophole for developers to continue construction if they survey the area themselves. There is no outside authority to check if salamander habitat will be disturbed. This could potentially allow for corrupt results of the investigation to be passed off as legitimate.

    Our response: This 4(d) rule does not provide a loophole, because all individual project proponents continue to be responsible for determining impacts on listed species and seeking the appropriate take coverage based on their determination.

    (26) Comment: If the development is single-family residential, two-family residential, or on a lot smaller than 2 ha (5 ac), the assessment from the Federal Government would be waived. Any construction, no matter how small it may be, will have an impact on the environment.

    Our response: There is no Federal Government assessment that would be waived from residential developments. Geologic assessments (which have to be completed under the UDC 11.07 regulations) are not required to be submitted to the City of Georgetown if the proposed development is a small (less than 2-ha (5-ac)) single-family and two-family residential development located in a small (25.9-ha (64-ac)) watershed. However, these developments are required to implement all other UDC water quality measures.

    Required Determinations Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this final 4(d) rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency must publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a threshold for “significant impact” and a threshold for a “substantial number of small entities.” See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). Based on the information that is available to us at this time, we certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The following discussion explains our rationale.

    On February 24, 2014 (79 FR 10236), we published the final determination to list the Georgetown salamander as a threatened species. That rule became effective on March 26, 2014. As a result, the Georgetown salamander is currently covered by the full protections of the Act, including the full section 9 prohibitions that make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct), import or export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any wildlife species listed as an endangered species, without written authorization. It also is illegal under section 9(a)(1) of the Act to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that is taken illegally. Prohibited actions consistent with section 9 of the Act are outlined for threatened species in 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b). This final 4(d) rule states that all prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b) will apply to the Georgetown salamander, except regulated activities that are conducted consistent with the water quality protective measures contained in Chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the Unified Development Code, which would result in a less restrictive regulation under the Act, as it pertains to the Georgetown salamander, than would otherwise exist. For the above reasons, we certify that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), we make the following findings:

    (a) This final rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or [T]ribal governments” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of Federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and [T]ribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,” and the State, local, or Tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”

    (b) This 4(d) rule promulgates that all prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b) will apply to the Georgetown salamander, except activities that are conducted consistent with the water quality protection measures contained in Chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the Unified Development Code, which would result in a less restrictive regulation under the Act, as it pertains to the Georgetown salamander, than would otherwise exist. As a result, we do not believe that this rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

    Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this final rule will not have significant takings implications. We have determined that the rule has no potential takings of private property implications as defined by this Executive Order because this 4(d) rule will result in a less-restrictive regulation under the Endangered Species Act than would otherwise exist. A takings implication assessment is not required.

    Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this final 4(d) rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement is not required. This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the State, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the State, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this final rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

    Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (Executive Order 13211)

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking actions that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. For reasons discussed within this final rule, we believe that the rule will not have any effect on energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have prepared a final environmental assessment, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. For information on how to obtain a copy of the final environmental assessment, see ADDRESSES, above.

    Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes. We determined that there are no known tribal lands within the range of the Georgetown salamander.

    Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

    Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

    PART 17—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend § 17.43 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 17.43 Special rules—amphibians.

    (e) Georgetown salamander (Eurycea naufragia).

    (1) Prohibitions. Except as noted in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, all prohibitions and provisions of §§ 17.31 and 17.32 apply to the Georgetown salamander.

    (2) Exemptions from prohibitions. Incidental take of the Georgetown salamander will not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act if the take occurs on non-Federal land from regulated activities that are conducted consistent with the water quality protection measures contained in chapter 11.07 and Appendix A of the City of Georgetown (Texas) Unified Development Code (UDC), as endorsed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    Dated: July 28, 2015. Stephen Guertin, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19335 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    80 152 Friday, August 7, 2015 Proposed Rules FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 312 RIN 3084-AB20 Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule Proposed Parental Consent Method; Jest8 Limited, Trading as Riyo, Application for Approval of Parental Consent Method AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission).

    ACTION:

    Request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Trade Commission requests public comment concerning the proposed parental consent method submitted by Jest8 Limited, trading as Riyo (“Riyo”), under the Voluntary Commission Approval Processes provision of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before September 3, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment at http://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/riyocoppaconsent online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Jest8 Limited (Trading as Riyo) Application for Parental Consent Method, Project No. P-155405” on your comment, and file your comment online at http://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/riyocoppaconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Jest8 Limited (Trading as Riyo) Application for Parental Consent Method, Project No. P-155405” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex E), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex E), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Miry Kim, Attorney, (202) 326-3622, or Peder Magee, Attorney, (202) 326-3538, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section A. Background

    On October 20, 1999, the Commission issued its final Rule 1 pursuant to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 6501 et seq, which became effective on April 21, 2000.2 On December 19, 2012, the Commission amended the Rule, and these amendments became effective on July 1, 2013.3 The Rule requires certain Web site operators to post privacy policies and provide notice, and to obtain verifiable parental consent, prior to collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children under the age of 13. The Rule enumerates methods for obtaining verifiable parental consent, while also allowing an interested party to file a written request for Commission approval of parental consent methods not currently enumerated.4 To be considered, the party must submit a detailed description of the proposed parental consent method, together with an analysis of how the method meets the requirements for parental consent described in 16 CFR 312.5(b)(1).

    1 64 FR 59888 (1999).

    2 16 CFR part 312.

    3 78 FR 3972 (2013).

    4 16 CFR 312.12(a); 78 FR at 3991-3992, 4013.

    Pursuant to Section 312.12(a) of the Rule, Riyo has submitted a proposed parental consent method to the Commission for approval. The full text of its application is available on the Commission's Web site at www.ftc.gov.

    Section B. Questions on the Parental Consent Method

    The Commission is seeking comment on the proposed parental consent method, and is particularly interested in receiving comment on the questions that follow. These questions are designed to assist the Commission's consideration of the petition and should not be construed as a limitation on the issues on which public comment may be submitted. Responses to these questions should cite the number of the question being answered. For all comments submitted, please provide any relevant data, statistics, or any other evidence, upon which those comments are based.

    1. Is this method, both with respect to the process for obtaining consent for an initial operator and any subsequent operators, already covered by existing methods enumerated in Section 312.5(b)(2) of the Rule?

    2. If this is a new method, provide comments on whether the proposed parental consent method, both with respect to an initial operator and any subsequent operators, meets the requirements for parental consent laid out in 16 CFR 312.5(b)(1). Specifically, the Commission is looking for comments on whether the proposed parental consent method is reasonably calculated, in light of available technology, to ensure that the person providing consent is the child's parent.

    3. Does this proposed method pose a risk to consumers' personal information? If so, is that risk outweighed by the benefit to consumers and businesses of using this method?

    Section C. Invitation to Comment

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 3, 2015. Write “Jest8 Limited (Trading as Riyo”) Application for Parental Consent Method, Project No. P-155405” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

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

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).5 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

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

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

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Jest8 Limited (Trading as Riyo) Application for Parental Consent Method, Project No. P-155405” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex E), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex E), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before September 3, 2015. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19425 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1, 25, 26, and 301 [REG-102837-15] RIN 1545-BM68 Guidance Under Section 529A: Qualifies ABLE Programs; Correction AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Correction to a notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains corrections to a notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing (REG-102837-15) that was published in the Federal Register on Monday, June 22, 2015 (80 FR 35602). The proposed regulations under section 529A of the Internal Revenue Code that provide guidance regarding programs under The Stephen Beck, Jr., Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2014.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments and request for a public hearing for the notice of proposed rulemaking at 80 FR 35602, June 22, 2015, are still being accepted and must be received by September 21, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Taina Edlund or Terri Harris at (202) 317-4541, or Sean Barnett (202) 317-5800, or Theresa Melchiorre (202) 317-4643 (not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The notice of proposed rulemaking that is subject of this document is under section 529A of the Internal Revenue Code.

    Need for Correction

    As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing (REG-102837-15) contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.

    Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing (REG-102837-15) that are subject to FR Doc. 2015-15280 are corrected as follows:

    1. On page 35603, in the preamble, second column, twelfth line, the language “Section 529(d)(2) provides that the” is corrected to read “Section 529A(d)(2) provides that the.”

    2. On page 35603, in the preamble, second column, nineteenth line, the language “529(d)(3) requires qualified ABLE” is corrected to read “529A(d)(3) requires qualified ABLE.”

    3. On page 35606, in the preamble, first column, second line from the bottom of the first paragraph, the language “meaning of § 1.529A-1(b)(9)(A) or” is corrected to read “meaning of § 1.529A-1 (b)(9)(i).”

    § 1.529A-1 [Corrected]

    4. On page 35612, second column, second and third line from the bottom of paragraph (b)(16), the language “within the meaning of § 1.529-1(b)(9)(A) or § 1.529-2(e)(1)(i) are not qualified” is corrected to read “within the meaning of § 1.529A-1(b)(9)(i) or § 1.529A-2(e)(1)(i) are not qualified.”

    § 1.529A-7 [Corrected]

    5. On page 35619, third column, paragraph (a)(5)(iii) the language “furnished though a Web site posting and” is corrected to read “furnished through a Web site posting and.”

    Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
    [FR Doc. 2015-19369 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 123, 131, 233, 501 [EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0461; FRL-9930-57-OW] Revised Interpretation of Clean Water Act Tribal Provision AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed interpretive rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    Waters on the majority of Indian reservations do not have water quality standards under the Clean Water Act to protect human health and the environment. Only 40 of over 300 federally recognized tribes with reservations have completed the process of obtaining EPA's approval to be treated in a manner similar to a state (TAS), and adopting standards for their waters that EPA has approved. EPA proposes to streamline how tribes apply for TAS for the water quality standards program and other Clean Water Act regulatory programs. The proposal would reduce the burden on applicant tribes and advance cooperative federalism by facilitating tribal involvement in the protection of reservation water quality as intended by Congress. Since 1991, EPA has followed a cautious approach that requires applicant tribes to demonstrate inherent authority to regulate waters and activities on their reservations under principles of federal Indian common law. The Agency has consistently stated that its approach was subject to change in the event of further congressional or judicial guidance addressing tribal authority under section 518 of the Clean Water Act. Having received such guidance, EPA proposes to conclude definitively that section 518 includes an express delegation of authority by Congress to eligible Indian tribes to administer regulatory programs over their entire reservations. This reinterpretation would eliminate the need for applicant tribes to demonstrate inherent authority to regulate under the Act, thus allowing tribes to implement the congressional delegation of authority unhindered by requirements not specified in the statute. The reinterpretation would also bring EPA's treatment of tribes under the Clean Water Act in line with EPA's treatment of tribes under the Clean Air Act, which has similar statutory language addressing tribal regulation of Indian reservation areas. This action would not revise any regulatory text. Regulatory provisions would remain in effect requiring tribes to identify the boundaries of the reservation areas over which they seek to exercise authority and allowing the adjacent state(s) to comment to EPA on an applicant tribe's assertion of authority. As a streamlining step, the proposed interpretive rule would have no significant cost.

    DATES:

    EPA must receive comments on this proposal on or before October 6, 2015. EPA will discuss this proposed rule and answer questions about it in a webinar during the above comment period. If you are interested, see EPA's Web site at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/tribal.cfm for the date and time of the webinar and instructions on how to register and participate. Additionally, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, any comments on the information collection provisions of this proposal are best assured of having full effect if the Office of Management and Budget receives a copy of your comments on or before September 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0461, by one of the following methods:

    http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected].

    • Fax: 202-566-0409

    Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0461. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503.

    Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0461. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation. Please make special arrangements for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0461. EPA's policy is to include all comments received in the public docket without change and make them 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 whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://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 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, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disc you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA might not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Water Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility 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; the telephone number for the Office of Water Docket Center is (202) 566-2426.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Leutner, Standards and Health Protection Division, Office of Science and Technology (4305T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-0378; fax number: (202) 566-0409; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This supplementary information section is organized as follows:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? 1. Resubmitting Relevant Comments From Consultations and Listening Sessions 2. Submitting CBI 3. Tips for Preparing Your Comments II. What is the statutory and regulatory history of the CWA TAS provision? A. Statutory History B. Regulatory History III. How did EPA interpret the CWA TAS provision when establishing TAS regulations for CWA regulatory programs? IV. What developments support EPA's proposed statutory reinterpretation? A. Relevant Congressional, Judicial and Administrative Developments B. EPA and Tribal Experience in Processing TAS Applications for CWA Regulatory Programs C. Request for Reinterpretation From Tribes V. How does EPA propose to reinterpret the CWA TAS provision? A. Statement of Proposal B. Geographic Scope of TAS for Regulatory Programs C. Treatment of Tribal Trust Lands D. Tribal Criminal Enforcement Authority E. Special Circumstances F. Tribal Inherent Regulatory Authority G. Existing Regulatory Requirements VI. How would the proposed change in interpretation affect existing EPA guidance to tribes seeking to administer CWA regulatory programs? VII. What are the anticipated effects of the proposed reinterpretation? A. Effects on Tribes That EPA Has Previously Found Eligible for TAS B. Effects on New Tribal Applications C. Effects on EPA-Approved State Programs VIII. Economic Analysis IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies to tribal governments that seek eligibility to administer regulatory programs under the Clean Water Act (CWA, or the Act). The table below provides examples of entities that could be affected by this action or have an interest in it.

    Category Examples of potentially affected or interested entities Tribes Federally recognized tribes with reservations that could potentially seek eligibility to administer CWA regulatory programs, and other interested tribes. States States adjacent to potential applicant tribes. Industry Industries discharging pollutants to waters within or adjacent to reservations of potential applicant tribes. Municipalities Publicly owned treatment works or other facilities discharging pollutants to waters within or adjacent to reservations of potential applicant tribes.

    If you have questions regarding the effect of this proposed action on a particular entity, please consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Resubmitting Relevant Comments from Consultations and Listening Sessions. EPA held multiple consultations and listening sessions with tribes and states concerning the issue addressed in this proposed action, and considered views and comments received from these sessions in developing this proposal. The proposed rule has evolved from the materials EPA shared at the time. Therefore, if you submitted comments based on these sessions and wish for EPA to consider them as part of the public comment opportunity for this proposed action, you must resubmit your comments to EPA in accordance with the instructions outlined in this document.

    2. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disc that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disc as CBI and then identify electronically within the disc 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. EPA will not disclose information so marked except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2.

    3. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

    • Identify the proposed action by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    • Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.

    • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

    • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

    • Explain your views as clearly as possible.

    • Submit your comments by the date shown in the DATES section of this notice.

    II. What is the statutory and regulatory history of the CWA TAS provision? A. Statutory History

    Congress added CWA section 518, 33 U.S.C. 1377, as part of amendments made in 1987. Section 518(e) authorizes EPA to treat eligible Indian tribes in the same manner as it treats states for a variety of purposes, including administering each of the principal CWA regulatory programs and receiving grants under several CWA funding authorities. Section 518(e) is commonly known as the “TAS” provision, for treatment in a similar manner as a state.

    Section 518(e) establishes eligibility criteria for TAS, including requirements that the tribe have a governing body carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers; that the functions to be exercised by the tribe pertain to the management and protection of water resources within the borders of an Indian reservation; and that the tribe be reasonably expected to be capable of carrying out the functions to be exercised in a manner consistent with the terms and purposes of the Act and applicable regulations. Section 518(e) also requires EPA to promulgate regulations specifying the TAS process for applicant tribes. See section II.B.

    Section 518(h) defines “Indian tribe” to mean any Indian tribe, band, group, or community recognized by the Secretary of the Interior and exercising governmental authority over a federal Indian reservation. It defines “federal Indian reservation” to mean all land within the limits of any reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through the reservation.

    B. Regulatory History

    Pursuant to section 518(e), EPA promulgated several final regulations establishing TAS criteria and procedures for Indian tribes interested in administering programs under the Act. The relevant regulations addressing TAS requirements for the principal CWA regulatory programs are:

    • 40 CFR 131.8 for section 303(c) water quality standards (WQS). Final rule published December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64876); proposed rule published September 22, 1989 (54 FR 39098). Referred to hereafter as the “1991 WQS TAS rule” or “1991 TAS rule”;

    • 40 CFR 131.4(c) for section 401 water quality certification, published in the 1991 WQS TAS rule;

    • 40 CFR 123.31-34 for section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting and other provisions, and 40 CFR 501.22-25 for the state sewage sludge management program. Final rule published December 22, 1993 (58 FR 67966); proposed rule published March 10, 1992 (57 FR 8522); and

    • 40 CFR 233.60-62 for section 404 dredge or fill permitting. Final rule published February 11, 1993 (58 FR 8172); proposed rule published November 29, 1989 (54 FR 49180).

    In 1994, EPA amended the above regulations to simplify the TAS process and eliminate unnecessary and duplicative procedural requirements. See 59 FR 64339 (December 14, 1994) (the “Simplification Rule”). For example, the Simplification Rule eliminated the need for a tribe to prequalify for TAS before applying for section 402 and section 404 permitting programs. Instead, the rule provided that a tribe would establish its TAS eligibility at the program approval stage, subject to EPA's notice and comment procedures already established for state program approvals in 40 CFR parts 123 and 233. The rule retained the prequalification requirements (including local notice and comment procedures) for section 303(c) WQS and section 401 water quality certifications. Id.; see also, 40 CFR 131.8(c)(2), (3).1 The TAS regulations for CWA regulatory programs have remained intact since promulgation of the Simplification Rule.

    1 Under the CWA and EPA's regulations, tribes can apply for TAS under CWA section 518 for the purpose of administering WQS and simultaneously submit actual standards for EPA review under section 303(c). Although they can proceed together, a determination of TAS eligibility and an approval of actual water quality standards are two distinct actions.

    This proposed action would not address or affect the TAS requirements or review process for tribes to receive grants.2 The receipt of grant funding does not involve any exercise of regulatory authority. Therefore, a determination of TAS eligibility solely for funding purposes does not, under existing regulations, require an analysis or determination regarding an applicant tribe's regulatory authority.

    2 EPA has promulgated regulations governing the TAS application and review requirements for CWA grant funding programs. See, e.g., 40 CFR 35.580-588 (CWA section 106 water pollution control funding); 40 CFR 35.600-615 (CWA section 104 water quality cooperative agreements and wetlands development funding); 40 CFR 35.630-638 (CWA section 319 nonpoint source management grants).

    III. How did EPA interpret the CWA TAS provision when establishing TAS regulations for CWA regulatory programs?

    In the 1991 WQS TAS rule, which addressed TAS for the WQS and certification programs, EPA explained that tribes must meet four criteria to be approved for TAS eligibility. Specifically, an applicant tribe must: (1) Be federally recognized, (2) carry out substantial governmental duties and powers over a “Federal Indian reservation” as defined in CWA section 518(h)(1), (3) have appropriate authority to regulate the quality of reservation waters, and (4) be reasonably expected to be capable of administering the CWA program. 54 FR at 39101.

    The third of the criteria—regulatory authority—is the sole focus of the proposed change in statutory interpretation. This proposal would not affect the other TAS criteria or tribal application requirements relating to those criteria.

    With regard to regulatory authority,3 EPA carefully analyzed section 518 and the then-current state of judicial precedent to assess whether Congress had intended to delegate regulatory authority to eligible Indian tribes to administer CWA regulatory programs throughout their entire reservations, including over lands owned by nonmembers of the tribe within a reservation. 56 FR at 64879-81. EPA noted significant support in the CWA and its legislative history for the conclusion that Congress had in fact delegated such authority. Id. Section 518(e) requires only that the functions to be exercised by the applicant Indian tribe pertain to the management and protection of water resources that are “within the borders of an Indian reservation.” Section 518(h)(1) expressly defines Indian reservations as “all land within the limits of any Indian reservation . . . notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through the reservation.”

    3 Tribal “regulatory authority” in this proposal refers to civil regulatory authority. See section V.D. for a discussion of tribal criminal enforcement authority.

    EPA specifically noted the import of language in Brendale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 492 U.S. 408, 428 (1989), where Justice White (with three additional Justices joining) identified CWA sections 518(e) and (h)(1) as an express delegation of authority to tribes, including authority over the activities of non-tribal members on their lands within a reservation. 56 FR at 64879-80. EPA agreed with commenters on the proposed rule that Justice White's opinion indicated that at least four Supreme Court Justices would interpret the plain language of section 518 as an express delegation of regulatory authority. Id.

    At the same time EPA recognized that Justice White's opinion was not a majority opinion of the Supreme Court (the other five Justices did not opine on the issue) and that the interpretation of CWA section 518 was not actually before the Court in Brendale. Id. EPA also noted that while there were significant statements in the legislative history of section 518 supporting congressional intent to delegate authority to eligible tribes, the legislative history standing alone was insufficiently clear to confirm definitively such intent. Id. at 64879-81. EPA was also mindful that three members of Congress had submitted comments in connection with the proposed TAS rule stating their respective views that Congress did not intend to expand the scope of tribal authority over non-Indians on the reservation by passage of section 518. Id. Although EPA observed that subsequent statements by members of Congress must be treated cautiously and do not supplement the statute's legislative history, EPA carefully considered the commenters' views in forming its initial approach to tribal regulatory authority under the CWA.

    Ultimately, EPA took a cautious approach in the 1991 TAS rule and stated it would await further congressional or judicial guidance on the extent to which section 518 is properly interpreted as an express congressional delegation of authority. Id. at 64877-81. EPA specifically stated the Agency's interpretation that in section 518, Congress had expressed a preference for tribal regulation of surface water quality on reservations to ensure compliance with the goals of the CWA. Id. at 64878-79. However, until such time as EPA revisited the issue, the Agency determined it would require applicant Indian tribes to demonstrate, on a case-by-case basis, their inherent authority under existing principles of federal Indian law to regulate activities under the CWA. Id. at 64880-81.

    EPA's approach required an applicant tribe to demonstrate its inherent tribal authority over the activities of non-tribal members on lands they own in fee within a reservation (“nonmember fee lands”) under the principles of Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), and its progeny. Montana held that absent a federal grant of authority, tribes generally lack inherent jurisdiction over nonmember activities on nonmember fee lands, but retain inherent civil jurisdiction over nonmember activities within the reservation where (i) nonmembers enter into “consensual relationships with the tribe or its members, through commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangements” or (ii) “. . . [nonmember] conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe.” Id. at 565-566; the “Montana test.”

    EPA noted that in applying the second prong of the Montana test and assessing the impacts of nonmember activities on a tribe, EPA will rely upon an operating rule that evaluates whether the potential impacts of regulated activities on the tribe are serious and substantial. 56 FR at 64878-79. EPA recognized that the analysis of whether the Montana test is met in a particular situation depends on the specific circumstances presented by the tribe's application. Id. at 64878. Thus, EPA's approach to the second prong of the Montana test involves a fact-specific inquiry to determine whether the tribe has shown that existing and potential nonmember activities within the reservation affecting water quality have or could have serious and substantial direct impacts on the political integrity, economic security, or health or welfare of the tribe.

    EPA adopted an identical approach and reasoning regarding tribal inherent regulatory authority in its subsequent TAS regulations (see list of regulations in section II.B). In these rules, EPA restated that the question of whether section 518 delegated authority to tribes to administer CWA regulatory programs on their reservations was unresolved and remained subject to additional consideration in light of subsequent congressional or judicial guidance. See, e.g., 58 FR at 8173-76; 58 FR at 67971, 67975-76.

    IV. What developments support EPA's proposed statutory reinterpretation? A. Relevant Congressional, Judicial and Administrative Developments

    EPA has taken final action approving TAS for CWA regulatory programs for 50 tribes since the 1991 WQS TAS rule.4 Three of those decisions were challenged in judicial actions. The last challenge concluded in 2002. In each of the cases, the reviewing court upheld EPA's determination with respect to the applicant tribe's inherent authority to regulate under the CWA. Wisconsin v. EPA, 266 F.3d 741 (7th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1121 (2002) (Sokaogon Chippewa Community); Montana v. EPA, 137 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 921 (1998) (Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation); Montana v. EPA, 141 F.Supp.2d 1259 (D. Mont. 1998) (Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation).5

    4 The site http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/approvtable.cfm provides a list of tribes approved for section 303(c) water quality standards and section 401 water quality certification. To date, EPA has not approved TAS for any tribe for CWA section 402 or section 404 permitting.

    5 EPA was also upheld in the only case challenging the Agency's approval of actual tribal water quality standards under CWA section 303(c) (which is a distinct action from EPA's approval of tribal TAS eligibility under section 518). City of Albuquerque v. Browner, 97 F.3d 415 (10th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 965 (1997) (water quality standards of Isleta Pueblo).

    As noted in section III's discussion of the 1991 TAS rule, EPA was mindful of the statement in Brendale indicating that Justice White and the three other Supreme Court Justices joining his plurality opinion viewed CWA section 518 as an express congressional delegation of authority to Indian tribes. 56 FR at 64889 (citing Brendale, 492 U.S. at 428). EPA also recognized, however, that the statement regarding section 518 was not necessary to the plurality's decision; nor was it based on an analysis of the relevant CWA legislative history, which, as EPA noted, was inconclusive on the issue. Id. EPA thus opted to proceed with a cautious initial approach to tribal regulatory authority under the CWA, and await further developments that could guide the proper interpretation of section 518.

    Since the 1991 TAS rule, there have been significant developments supporting the interpretive change EPA proposes. Notably, the first court to review a challenge to an EPA CWA TAS approval expressed the view that the statutory language of section 518 indicated plainly that Congress intended to delegate authority to Indian tribes to regulate their entire reservations, including regulation of non-Indians on fee lands within a reservation. Montana v. EPA, 941 F. Supp. 945, 951-52 (D. Mont. 1996), aff'd, 137 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 921 (1998). In that case, the applicant tribe, participating as amicus, argued that the definition of “federal Indian reservation” in CWA section 518(h)(1)—which expressly includes all land within the limits of a reservation notwithstanding the issuance of any patent—combined with the bare requirement of section 518(e) that the functions to be exercised by the applicant tribe pertain to reservation water resources, demonstrates that section 518 provides tribes with delegated regulatory authority over their entire reservations, including over non-Indian reservation lands. Id. Because EPA premised its approval of the TAS application at issue upon a showing of inherent tribal authority, it was unnecessary for the district court to reach the delegation issue as part of its holding in the case. Nonetheless, the court readily acknowledged that section 518 is properly interpreted as an express congressional delegation of authority to Indian tribes over their entire reservations. The court noted that the legislative history might be ambiguous, although only tangentially so, since the bulk of the legislative history relates to the entirely separate issue of whether section 518(e) pertains to non-Indian water quantity rights, which it does not. Id. The court observed the established principle that Congress may delegate authority to Indian tribes—per United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 (1975)—and commented favorably on Justice White's statement regarding section 518 in Brendale. Id. The court also noted that a congressional delegation of authority to tribes over their entire reservations “comports with common sense” to avoid a result where an interspersed mixing of tribal and state WQS could apply on a reservation depending on whether the waters traverse or bound tribal or non-Indian reservation land. Id. Having thus analyzed CWA section 518, the court concluded—albeit in dicta—that Congress had intended to delegate such authority to Indian tribes over their entire reservations.

    The TAS provision of a separate statute—the Clean Air Act (CAA)—provides additional relevant insight into congressional intent. Congress added the CAA TAS provision—section 301(d)—to the statute in 1990, only three years after it enacted CWA section 518. Although CAA section 301(d) pre-dates EPA's 1991 CWA TAS rule, it was not until 1998 that EPA promulgated its regulations interpreting the CAA TAS provision as an express congressional delegation of authority to eligible Indian tribes. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit upheld that interpretation two years later. Arizona Public Service Co. v. EPA, 211 F.3d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (“APS”), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 970 (2001). Viewed in light of the court's careful review, the CAA TAS provision provides useful guidance regarding Congress' understanding of the importance of uniform tribal regulation of mobile environmental pollutants within reservations. Further, that understanding can fairly be traced back to the 1987 enactment of CWA section 518. Each statute must, of course, be viewed in light of its own language and history. Relevant aspects of EPA's interpretation of the CAA TAS provision are described below.

    EPA finalized its regulations implementing CAA section 301(d) in 1998. 40 CFR part 49; 63 FR 7254 (February 12, 1998) (the “CAA Tribal Authority Rule”). The CAA TAS provision, combined with the definition of Indian tribe in CAA section 302(r), established the same basic TAS eligibility criteria for CAA purposes that apply under the CWA: i.e., federal recognition, tribal government carrying out substantial duties and powers, jurisdiction, and capability. With regard to jurisdiction, EPA carefully analyzed the language and legislative history of the relevant portion of the CAA TAS provision, CAA section 301(d)(2)(B), and concluded that Congress had intended to delegate authority to eligible Indian tribes to administer CAA regulatory programs over their entire reservations irrespective of land ownership—e.g., including over nonmember fee lands within the reservation. 63 FR at 7254-57. EPA determined that the language of the provision distinguished between reservation and non-reservation areas over which tribes could seek TAS eligibility and plainly indicated Congress' intent that reservations will be under tribal jurisdiction. Id. By contrast, for non-reservation areas tribes would need to demonstrate their inherent authority to regulate under principles of federal Indian law. Id.

    EPA noted at that time important similarities between the CAA and CWA TAS provisions. Most notably, the tribal provisions of both statutes expressly provided eligibility for tribal programs that pertain to the management and protection of environmental resources (i.e., air and water, respectively) located on Indian reservations. Id. at 7256. For instance, CAA section 301(d) provides for tribal regulation of air resources “within the exterior boundaries of the reservation” without any requirement for a demonstration by applicant tribes of separate authority over such reservation areas. CAA section 301(d)(2)(B). Similarly, CWA section 518 provides eligibility for tribal programs covering water resources “within the borders of an Indian reservation” and expressly defines Indian reservations to include all land within the reservation notwithstanding the issuance of any patent and including rights-of-way. CWA sections 518(e)(2), (h)(1). By their plain terms, both statutes thus treat reservation lands and resources the same way and set such areas aside for tribal programs. At the time EPA promulgated the CAA Tribal Authority Rule, however, EPA viewed the CAA—which also contained other provisions addressing tribal roles—and its legislative history as more conclusively demonstrating congressional intent to delegate authority to eligible tribes over their reservations. Id. EPA recognized that this resulted in different approaches to two similar TAS provisions and reiterated that the question remained as to whether the CWA provision is also an express delegation of authority to eligible tribes. Id. EPA also cited to the district court decision in Montana v. EPA, which, as noted above, concluded that CWA section 518 plainly appears to delegate such authority to Indian tribes. Id.

    Several parties petitioned for judicial review of the CAA Tribal Authority Rule and challenged whether CAA section 301(d) could be properly interpreted as a delegation of authority by Congress to eligible Indian tribes. APS, 211 F.3d at 1287-92. The D.C. Circuit carefully analyzed CAA section 301(d), the relevant legislative history, and the judicial precedent on delegations of authority to Indian tribes and concluded that EPA's interpretation comported with congressional intent. Id. The court acknowledged the similarities between the CAA and CWA TAS provisions, as well as EPA's different approach under the CWA. Id. at 1291-92. However, the court also noted with significance that EPA's approach under the CWA had not been subjected to judicial review and observed favorably the district court's statements in Montana v. EPA that section 518 plainly indicates congressional intent to delegate authority to Indian tribes. Id. Ultimately, the D.C. Circuit recognized that EPA had taken a cautious approach under the CWA but that there was no reason EPA must do so again under the CAA. Id.

    A dissenting judge in the APS case disagreed that CAA section 301(d)(2)(B) expressed congressional intent to delegate authority to tribes over their reservations. Id. at 1301-05. Notably, the dissent's view was predicated largely on the absence in section 301(d)(2)(B) of language explicitly describing the reservation areas over which tribes would exercise CAA jurisdiction as including all reservation lands notwithstanding the issuance of any patent and including rights-of-way running through the reservation (emphasis added). Id. The dissent viewed this language as critical to an expression of congressional intent that tribes are to exercise delegated authority over all reservation lands, including lands owned by nonmembers of the tribes. Id. And in the absence of such language—which the dissent referred to as “the gold standard for such delegations”—the dissent did not view CAA section 301(d)(2)(B) as expressing Congress' intent to relieve tribes of the need to demonstrate their inherent authority to regulate under the CAA, including a demonstration of inherent authority over nonmember activities on fee lands under the Supreme Court's Montana test. Id. at 1303-04.6 Notably, the dissent observed that the key “notwithstanding” language is, in fact, included in the relevant tribal provisions of the CWA—i.e., in the definition of “federal Indian reservation” in CWA section 518(h)(1). Id. at 1302 (referencing Brendale, 492 U.S. at 428). The dissent noted that in spite of the statement in Brendale, EPA had determined not to treat CWA section 518 as a congressional delegation; however, the dissent also observed that no court had yet resolved the issue. Id.

    6 The dissent in APS also concluded that a separate provision of the CAA—section 110(o)—expressly delegates authority to eligible Indian tribes over their entire reservations for the specific CAA program established in that provision. Id. at 1301-02. Section 110(o) includes the key language cited by the dissent as indicative of express congressional delegations of authority to tribes over their reservations. Id.

    As the D.C. Circuit stated in APS, no court has yet reviewed EPA's interpretation of tribal regulation under the CWA on the question of whether CWA section 518 constitutes an express delegation of authority from Congress to eligible Indian tribes to regulate water resources throughout their reservations. Importantly, members of the three courts that have considered the issue have favorably viewed such an interpretation: The U.S. Supreme Court in Brendale, the federal district court in Montana v. EPA, and the D.C. Circuit in APS.

    In light of these developments, as well as EPA's experience administratively interpreting and implementing the CAA TAS provision, it is appropriate to revisit and revise EPA's approach to TAS under the CWA. In the preambles to the CWA TAS regulations from the 1990s, EPA discussed the possibility of reinterpreting CWA section 518 as an express congressional delegation of authority to tribes based on subsequent congressional or judicial guidance. The proposed action would accomplish such a reinterpretation.

    B. EPA and Tribal Experience in Processing TAS Applications for CWA Regulatory Programs

    Based on EPA's experience to date, the TAS application process has become significantly more burdensome than EPA anticipated in 1991. Many authorized tribes have informed EPA that the demonstration of inherent tribal authority, including application of the Montana test, constituted the single greatest administrative burden in their application processes.

    In the 1991 TAS rule, EPA expressed its expert view that given the importance of surface water to tribes and their members, the serious nature of water pollution impacts, and the mobility of pollutants in water, applicant Indian tribes would generally be able to demonstrate inherent regulatory authority to set WQS for reservation waters, including as applied to nonmembers on fee lands under federal Indian law principles. Id. at 64877-79. In light of the Agency's generalized findings regarding the relationship of water quality to tribal health and welfare, EPA noted that a tribe could likely meet the Montana test by making a relatively simple factual showing that (1) there are waters within the subject reservation used by the tribe or its members, (2) the waters are subject to protection under the CWA, and (3) impairment of the waters by nonmember activities on fee lands would have serious and substantial effects on tribal health and welfare. Id. at 64879.

    EPA thus anticipated in the early 1990s that applicant tribes would face a relatively simple initial burden of supplying basic facts to demonstrate that they retain requisite inherent authority to regulate under the CWA—including regulation of nonmember activities on fee lands—under established federal Indian law principles. Id.

    Unfortunately, EPA's expectations have not, as a general matter, been realized. Although each TAS application has varied according to the particular facts and circumstances of the applicant tribe and its reservation, the general experience confirms that demonstrations of inherent regulatory authority continue to impose unintended administrative hurdles on applicant tribes and to require substantial commitments of limited tribal and federal resources. In particular, the demonstration of inherent authority over nonmember activities on the reservation under the so-called Montana test has created the most significant and widespread burden and at the same time provides no information necessary for EPA's oversight of the regulatory program. Tribes have repeatedly expressed their concern that the demonstration of inherent authority on a case-by-case basis is challenging, time consuming and costly. EPA's information on the 50 tribes that it has found eligible to administer WQS and section 401 certifications indicates that tribal applications for reservations with nonmember fee lands, which require an analysis of tribal inherent authority under Montana, took 1.6 years longer to be approved, on average, than applications for reservations without such lands.

    The elimination of such unintended administrative burdens does not, in itself, provide a legal rationale to alter EPA's interpretation of section 518. However, streamlining a TAS process that has become unnecessarily restrictive and burdensome does offer a strong policy basis for the Agency to take a careful second look at that provision and to consider—as it contemplated as early as 1991—whether intervening events have shed additional light on the appropriate statutory interpretation. Eliminating such unnecessary burdens is consistent with longstanding EPA and Executive policy to support tribal self-determination and promote and streamline tribal involvement in managing and regulating their lands and environments. See, e.g., Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000); Presidential Memorandum: Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951, April 29, 1994); EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations (November 8, 1984).

    As explained in section III, EPA has long interpreted the CWA as expressing Congress' preference for tribal regulation of reservation surface water quality. See, e.g., 56 FR at 64878. As explained in section IV, developments subsequent to the 1991 TAS rule definitively confirm that section 518 includes an express delegation of authority by Congress to eligible tribes to regulate water resources under the CWA throughout their entire reservations.

    C. Request for Reinterpretation from Tribes

    In April 2013, the National Tribal Water Council 7 expressed its concern in a document submitted to EPA's Office of Water 8 that “[c]urrently, EPA does not treat tribes and states in the same manner even though it has the authority to do so under section 518(e)(2) of the CWA.” The Council further stated that “reliance on a jurisdictional showing before granting tribal regulatory authority has prevented many tribes from establishing federally approved WQS for the waters of their reservations. This has left a significant portion of Native American communities without the protection of the CWA to safeguard their water resources.” The Council encouraged EPA to consider reinterpreting the CWA TAS provision as an express delegation of congressional authority as it did with the similar provision of the CAA and to remove the requirement for tribes to show their inherent authority.9

    7 For more information on the National Tribal Water Council, see http://nationaltribalwatercouncil.org/.

    8Equal Treatment for Tribes in Seeking Eligibility under EPA Regulatory Programs, unsigned undated document, National Tribal Water Council, provided to the Office of Water in April 2013. Available at the above site.

    9 In addition to demonstrating their inherent regulatory authority, a number of tribes that have previously applied for TAS to administer CWA regulatory programs have asserted in their applications their view that CWA section 518 constitutes an express delegation of authority from Congress. Although EPA has not previously relied on that approach in its TAS decisions, it is noteworthy that tribes have expressed this legal interpretation in prior applications.

    V. How does EPA propose to reinterpret the CWA TAS provision? A. Statement of Proposal

    Based on the analysis in sections III and IV above, EPA proposes to revise its interpretation of CWA section 518 and conclude definitively that Congress expressly delegated authority to Indian tribes to administer CWA regulatory programs over their entire reservations, including over nonmember activities on fee lands within the reservation of the applicant tribe, subject to the eligibility requirements in section 518. In doing so, EPA thus proposes to exercise the authority entrusted to it by Congress to implement the CWA TAS provision.

    EPA's revised interpretation is, most importantly, expressed in the language of section 518. Section 518(e)(2) requires only that the functions to be exercised by the applicant Indian tribe pertain to the management and protection of water resources “within the borders of an Indian reservation.” Section 518(h)(1) then defines the term “federal Indian reservation” to include all lands within the limits of any Indian reservation notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through the reservation. That definition is precisely the same language that the dissent in APS stated is the “gold standard” for an express congressional delegation of regulatory authority to tribes over their entire reservations. APS, 211 F3.d at 1302-03. It is also the language that the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed in finding congressional delegations to tribes in other contexts. United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 (1975) (delegation of authority to tribes regarding regulation of liquor); Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983) (same). Although the legislative history of section 518 has, of course, remained unaltered since 1987, the plain language of the statute and the above-described developments provide ample support for the revised interpretation.

    The effect of this proposal would be to relieve tribes of the need to demonstrate their inherent authority when they apply for TAS to administer CWA regulatory programs. In particular, this proposal would eliminate any need to demonstrate that the applicant tribe retains inherent authority to regulate the conduct of nonmembers of the tribe on fee lands under the test established by the Supreme Court in Montana. Instead, applicant tribes would be able to rely on the congressional delegation of authority in section 518 as the source of their authority to regulate their entire reservations under the CWA, without distinguishing among various categories of on-reservation land. As EPA explained in connection with the CAA, such a territorial approach that treats Indian reservations uniformly promotes rational, sound management of environmental resources that might be subjected to mobile pollutants that disperse over wide areas without regard to land ownership. See 59 FR at 43959. As specifically recognized by the district court in Montana v. EPA, the same holds true for regulation under the CWA. Montana, 941 F. Supp. at 952.

    B. Geographic Scope of TAS for Regulatory Programs

    EPA's proposal would not affect—either by expanding or contracting—the geographic scope of potential tribal TAS eligibility under the CWA. Under section 518, tribes can only obtain TAS status over waters within the borders of their reservations. See, e.g., 56 FR at 64881-82. Thus, under any approach to tribal regulatory authority under the CWA, tribal TAS eligibility under the CWA is limited to Indian reservations. Tribes can seek TAS with respect to water resources pertaining to any type of on-reservation land, including, for example, reservation land held in trust by the United States for a tribe, reservation land owned by or held in trust for a member of the tribe, and reservation land owned by non-tribal members. Conversely, tribes cannot obtain TAS under the CWA for water resources pertaining to any non-reservation Indian country 10 or any other type of non-reservation land.11 The proposed change in interpretation would not alter that basic limitation of TAS under the CWA.

    10 Indian country is defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 as: (a) All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation; (b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state; and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same. Indian reservations are thus a subset of the broader geographic area that comprises Indian country as a whole.

    11 Many tribes have rights to hunt, fish, gather resources, or perform other activities in areas outside of their reservations. To the extent the lands on which these rights are exercised are not Indian reservation lands as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151(a), tribes cannot obtain TAS under the CWA for water resources pertaining to such lands.

    C. Treatment of Tribal Trust Lands

    The proposed change in statutory interpretation would not alter the current approach to tribal trust lands. Indian reservations include trust lands validly set aside for Indian tribes even if such lands have not formally been designated as an Indian reservation. Many named Indian reservations were established through federal treaties with tribes, federal statutes, or Executive Orders of the President. Such reservations are often referred to as formal Indian reservations. Many tribes have lands that the United States holds in trust for the tribes, but that have not been formally designated as reservations. As EPA has consistently stated, and consistent with relevant judicial precedent, such tribal trust lands are informal reservations and thus have the same status as formal reservations for purposes of the Agency's programs. See, e.g., 56 FR at 64881; 63 FR at 7257-58; APS, 211 F.3d at 1292-94. For CWA purposes, tribes have thus always been able to seek TAS over such trust lands, and would continue to be able to do so under this proposal. Several tribes have done so previously.

    D. Tribal Criminal Enforcement Authority

    EPA's proposed change in statutory interpretation would not affect any existing limitations on tribal criminal enforcement authority. This proposal relates solely to applicant Indian tribes' civil regulatory authority to administer CWA regulatory programs on their reservations; it does not address or in any way alter the scope of tribal criminal enforcement jurisdiction. EPA has previously established regulations addressing implementation of criminal enforcement authority on Indian reservations for those CWA programs that include potential exercises of such authority. See, e.g., 40 CFR 123.34, 233.41(f). These regulations provide that the federal government will retain primary criminal enforcement responsibility in those situations where eligible tribes do not assert or are precluded from exercising such authority.

    E. Special Circumstances

    There could be rare instances where special circumstances limit or preclude a particular tribe's ability to accept or effectuate the congressional delegation of authority over its reservation. For example, there could be a separate federal statute establishing unique jurisdictional arrangements for a specific state or a specific reservation that could affect a tribe's ability to exercise authority under the CWA. It is also possible that provisions in particular treaties or tribal constitutions could limit a tribe's ability to exercise relevant authority.12

    12 EPA takes no position in this proposal regarding whether any particular tribe or Indian reservation is subject to any potential impediment relating to the effectuation of the congressional delegation of regulatory authority or how the CWA can be interpreted vis-à-vis the alleged source of any such impediment. Any such issue would need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis and with the benefit of a full record of relevant information that would be developed during the processing of a particular TAS application. To the extent EPA is ever called upon to make a decision regarding this type of issue, such a decision would be rendered in the context of EPA's final action on a specific TAS application, and any judicial review of that decision would occur in that context.

    The application requirements of existing CWA TAS regulations already require tribes to submit a statement of their legal counsel (or equivalent official) describing the basis for their assertion of authority. The statement can include copies of documents such as tribal constitutions, by-laws, charters, executive orders, codes, ordinances, resolutions, etc. See 40 CFR 131.8(b)(3)(ii); 123.32(c); 233.61(c)(2). If EPA finalizes this proposed action, the requirement for a legal counsel's statement would continue to apply and would ensure that applicant tribes appropriately rely on the congressional delegation of authority and provide any additional information that could be relevant to their ability to accept or effectuate the delegated authority. As described below in section V.G., existing CWA TAS and program regulations will also continue to provide appropriate opportunities for other potentially interested entities—such as states or other Indian tribes adjacent to an applicant tribe—to comment on an applicant tribe's assertion of authority and, among other things, inform EPA of any special circumstances that they believe could affect a tribe's ability to regulate under the CWA.

    Section 10211(b) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (“SAFETEA”), Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (August 10, 2005) established a unique TAS requirement with respect to Indian tribes located in the State of Oklahoma. Under section 10211(b) of SAFETEA, tribes in Oklahoma seeking TAS under a statute administered by the EPA for the purpose of administering an environmental regulatory program must, in addition to meeting applicable TAS requirements under the EPA statute, enter into a cooperative agreement with the state that is subject to EPA approval and that provides for the tribe and state to jointly plan and administer program requirements. This requirement of SAFETEA exists apart from, and in addition to, existing TAS criteria, including the TAS criteria set forth in section 518 of the CWA. EPA's proposal relates solely to the interpretation of an existing CWA TAS requirement; it would thus have no effect on the separate TAS requirement of section 10211(b) of SAFETEA.

    F. Tribal Inherent Regulatory Authority

    EPA's proposed change in statutory interpretation is not intended as any comment on the extent of tribal inherent regulatory authority. As the Agency clearly articulated in the TAS rules identified in section II.B, the importance of water resources to tribes, the serious potential impacts of water pollution on tribes' uses of their waters, and the mobility of pollutants in water all strongly support tribes' ability to demonstrate their inherent authority to regulate surface water quality on their reservations, including the authority to regulate nonmember conduct on fee lands under the Supreme Court's test established in Montana. Consistent with its 1991 interpretation of section 518, EPA concluded that each of the 50 tribes it has approved for TAS for CWA regulatory programs has demonstrated its inherent regulatory authority and has demonstrated that the functions it sought to exercise pertain to the management and protection of reservation water resources. All Agency CWA TAS determinations challenged in court have been upheld.

    The proposed change in interpretation would not affect these prior TAS approvals. The proposed change would, however, modify EPA's approach going forward to be consistent with Congress' intent to delegate authority to eligible tribes. It would relieve tribes of the administrative burden associated with demonstrating their inherent regulatory authority in the TAS application process. The change in interpretation does not, however, alter EPA's prior views regarding the extent of tribal inherent regulatory authority.13

    13 In promulgating the CAA Tribal Authority Rule, the EPA similarly noted its expert view that even absent a direct delegation of authority from Congress, tribes would very likely have inherent authority over all activities within Indian reservation boundaries that are subject to CAA regulation. 59 FR at 43958 n.5.

    G. Existing Regulatory Requirements

    Because the proposed change in statutory interpretation is consistent with existing CWA TAS regulatory text, EPA's proposal would not revise any regulatory text in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    If EPA finalizes its change in interpretation, tribes would be able to rely on the congressional delegation of authority in section 518 as the source of their authority to regulate water quality on their reservations. Aside from any special circumstances (see section V.E.), the main focus in determining the extent of an applicant tribe's jurisdiction for CWA regulatory purposes would then be identifying the geographic boundaries of the Indian reservation area (whether a formal or informal reservation) over which the congressionally delegated authority would apply. EPA's existing CWA TAS regulations already provide for applicant tribes to submit a map or legal description of the reservation area that is the subject of the TAS application. See 40 CFR 131.8(b)(3)(i); 123.32(c); 233.61(c)(1); 501.23(c). These provisions would continue to apply and would ensure that each tribe applying for a CWA regulatory program submits information adequate to demonstrate the location and boundaries of the subject reservation.

    The existing regulations provide appropriate opportunities for potentially interested entities to provide input to EPA regarding any jurisdictional issues associated with a tribe's TAS application. As mentioned in section II.B. above, EPA's TAS regulations for the CWA section 303(c) WQS program include a process for notice to appropriate governmental entities—states, tribes and other federal entities located contiguous to the reservation of the applicant tribe—and provide an opportunity for such entities to provide comment on the applicant tribe's assertion of authority. EPA makes such notice broad enough that other potentially interested entities can participate in the process. 56 FR at 64884. For example, EPA routinely publishes notice of tribal TAS applications for the WQS program in relevant local newspapers covering the area of the subject reservation and in electronic media.

    EPA's TAS regulations for the CWA section 402 and 404 permitting programs require an analysis of regulatory authority as part of the program approval process under 40 CFR parts 123 and 233 that are described in section II.B. As described in the Simplification Rule, EPA makes its decisions to approve or disapprove those programs as part of a public notice and comment process conducted in the Federal Register. 59 FR at 64340.

    Thus, the regulations would continue to afford appropriate opportunities for interested parties to comment on tribal assertions of authority for all CWA regulatory programs. Because the principal jurisdictional issue under the proposed reinterpretation would be the boundaries of the subject reservation, any comments on an applicant tribe's assertion of authority would likely focus on the reservation boundaries.14 However, to the extent a particular application presents a separate jurisdictional issue, the notice-and-comment process that exists in each CWA TAS regulation would also be available to raise such an issue to EPA for due consideration.

    14 Focusing the jurisdictional inquiry on the geographic scope of a tribe's TAS application—i.e., the boundary of the reservation area that a tribe seeks to regulate—would impose no additional burden on entities that wish to comment on an applicant tribe's assertion of authority. Under any approach to tribal regulatory authority, the geographic scope of the TAS application would be a relevant jurisdictional consideration and thus an appropriate issue for potential comment during the TAS process. Commenters have, at times, raised such geographic issues in the context of previous TAS applications; EPA's proposal would not alter the opportunity to do so for future applications, or any burden attendant to preparing and submitting such comments.

    Because this proposal merely explains EPA's revised interpretation of existing statutory requirements established in the CWA tribal provision—and does not propose any changes to the existing regulatory language applicable to CWA TAS applications—an interpretive rule is the appropriate vehicle to announce EPA's revised approach. This interpretive rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. However, EPA decided to provide notice and an opportunity for comment to increase transparency and to allow interested parties to provide their views. EPA intends this process to ensure that the Agency's decision making is well informed by stakeholder views and invites comments on all aspects of this proposal to reinterpret section 518 of the CWA as a congressional delegation of authority to eligible tribes.

    VI. How would the proposed change in interpretation affect existing EPA guidance to tribes seeking to administer CWA regulatory programs?

    As noted in section V.G., EPA's proposal would not revise any regulatory text. However, if EPA finalizes the proposal, the Agency would consider revising and updating some of its existing guidance to tribes and EPA regional offices on implementing the regulations.

    For example, a 1998 memorandum to EPA staff (the “Cannon-Perciasepe Memorandum”) 15 provided guidance for EPA's reviews of tribal assertions of inherent authority. The memorandum established a case-by-case process for EPA to seek comments from appropriate governmental entities and the public on EPA's proposed factual findings relating to nonmember activities on fee lands. Cannon-Perciasepe Memorandum, p. 6. The memorandum also provided detailed guidance for implementing the Montana test. Cannon-Perciasepe Memorandum, Att. C.16

    15 “Adoption of the Recommendations from the EPA Workgroup on Tribal Eligibility Determinations,” memorandum from Assistant Administrator for Water Robert Perciasepe and General Counsel Jonathan Z. Cannon to EPA Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators, March 19, 1998.

    16 The “Cannon-Perciasepe” approach and related guidance to tribes are reflected in subsequent EPA materials, including portions of the “Strategy for Reviewing Tribal Eligibility Applications to Administer EPA Regulatory Programs,” memorandum from Deputy Administrator Marcus Peacock, January 23, 2008.

    If EPA finalizes this proposal, the memorandum's Montana test guidance would no longer be relevant for TAS applications for CWA regulatory programs, and there would be no need for EPA to develop or seek comment on factual findings relating to tribal inherent authority. EPA would update its guidance to applicant tribes to reflect these changes consistent with the express congressional delegation of authority to eligible tribes.

    VII. What are the anticipated effects of the proposed reinterpretation? A. Effects on Tribes That EPA Has Previously Found Eligible for TAS

    There would be no effect on tribes that EPA has previously found eligible for TAS for the purpose of a CWA regulatory program.

    B. Effects on New Tribal Applications

    If EPA finalizes this proposed interpretive rule, then after the effective date TAS applications for CWA regulatory programs would be able to rely on the delegation from Congress as the relevant source of authority supporting their eligibility. The reinterpretation should thus streamline the TAS process for many tribes seeking eligibility to administer CWA regulatory programs. EPA anticipates that this proposed action, if finalized, could significantly reduce the time and effort for tribes to develop their TAS applications, and could encourage more tribes to apply for TAS for CWA regulatory programs.

    EPA advises tribes that have already initiated TAS applications for CWA regulatory programs that the reinterpretation proposed in this action has not yet taken effect. The earliest it could take effect would be 30 days after EPA issues a final interpretive rule after reviewing and considering all comments received during the public comment period (see DATES section at the beginning of this document). All TAS applications will be processed under the existing statutory interpretation and the current regulations and guidance noted above, unless and until EPA issues a final interpretive rule. Such tribes can, at their option, ask EPA to suspend action on their current CWA applications for regulatory programs pending a potential final interpretive rule, but EPA cannot guarantee whether or when this proposal will be finalized.

    C. Effects on EPA-Approved State Programs

    EPA's proposal would have no effect on the scope of existing state regulatory programs approved by EPA under the CWA. Generally speaking, civil regulatory jurisdiction in Indian country lies with the federal government and the relevant Indian tribe, not with the states. See, e.g., Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Gov't, 522 U.S. 520, 527 n.1 (1998). Therefore, in the absence of an express demonstration of authority by a state for such areas, EPA has generally excluded Indian country from its approvals of state regulatory programs under the CWA.

    The proposal relates solely to the exercise of jurisdiction by Indian tribes on their reservations; it would have no effect on the scope of existing CWA regulatory programs administered by states outside of Indian country. It would neither diminish, nor enlarge, the scope of such approved state programs.

    There are uncommon situations where a federal statute other than the CWA grants a state jurisdiction to regulate in areas of Indian country. For example, in a few cases EPA has approved states to operate CWA regulatory programs in areas of Indian country where the states demonstrated jurisdiction based on such a separate federal statute. This proposal is not intended to address or affect such jurisdiction that other federal statutes provide to states.

    Regulations already exist to address circumstances where a state or tribe believes that unreasonable consequences could arise or have arisen as a result of differing WQS set by states and eligible Indian tribes on common bodies of water. Section 518(e) of the CWA required EPA to provide a mechanism to address such situations. The Agency did so at 40 CFR 131.7, which establishes a detailed dispute resolution mechanism. This proposal does not affect that process; it would remain available as needed to address potential state/tribal issues.

    VIII. Economic Analysis

    This rule would entail no significant cost. Its only direct effect would be to reduce the administrative burden for a tribe applying to administer a CWA regulatory program, and to potentially increase the pace at which tribes seek such programs. See the discussion of administrative burden and cost in section IX.B. (Paperwork Reduction Act).

    IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    EPA has submitted the information collection activities in this proposed interpretive rule to OMB for approval under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2515.01. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.

    As discussed in section II.B., EPA's regulations require that a tribe seeking to administer a CWA regulatory program must submit information to EPA demonstrating that the tribe meets the statutory criteria described in section II.A. EPA requires this information in order to determine that the tribe is eligible to administer the program.

    This proposed interpretive rule would streamline the application by removing the current requirement for an applicant tribe to demonstrate its inherent regulatory authority, including demonstrating that it meets the Montana test where relevant. As described in the ICR, this proposed rule would reduce the burden by an estimated 583 staff hours for a typical tribe, or 27 percent, and reduce the cost of an application to a typical tribe for salaries and contractor support by an estimated $70,554 per tribe, or 39 percent.

    Respondents/affected entities: Any federally recognized tribe with a reservation can potentially apply to administer a regulatory program under the CWA.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: The information discussed in this rule is required from a tribe only if the tribe seeks to administer a CWA regulatory program. See EPA's regulations cited in section II.B of this notice.

    Estimated number of respondents: The total potential pool of respondents is over 300 tribes with reservations. Although there are 566 federally recognized Indian tribes in the United States, the CWA allows only those tribes with reservations to apply for authority to administer programs. EPA estimates that about six tribes per year would apply for a regulatory program under this proposed rule, an increase from the current rate of four tribes per year. The pace of applications could increase after the first few years as tribes become more familiar with the post-rule process.

    Frequency of response: Application by a tribe to be eligible to administer a CWA regulatory program is a one-time collection of information.

    Total estimated burden: 9,642 tribal staff hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). EPA's ICR analysis included all administrative costs associated with TAS applications even if some of the costs are not strictly information collection costs. EPA was unable to differentiate the information collection costs consistently and reliably from other administrative costs such as program development costs.

    This estimate could overstate actual burden because (a) EPA assumed that all applications are first-time applications for CWA regulatory programs, and thus the tribes submitting them would be unable to rely on materials from previous applications for different regulatory programs; (b) EPA used a liberal estimate of the annual rate of tribal applications to ensure that the ICR does not underestimate tribal burden; and (c) EPA used a simplifying steady-state assumption in estimating annualized costs.

    Total estimated cost: $668,292, including staff salaries and the cost of contractors supporting tribal applicants. This action does not entail capital or operation and maintenance costs.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to EPA using the docket identified in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this rule. You can also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than September 8, 2015. EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action affects only Indian tribes that seek to administer CWA regulatory programs.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action would not have federalism implications. It would 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.

    This proposed action would apply only to tribal governments that seek eligibility to administer CWA regulatory programs. Although it could be of interest to some state governments, it would not apply directly to any state government or to any other entity. As discussed in section VII.C., the action would have no effect on the scope of existing state regulatory programs approved by EPA under the CWA.

    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, EPA consulted with representatives of state governments to obtain meaningful and timely input for consideration in this proposal. On June 18, 2014, EPA invited ten national and regional state associations 17 by letter to a July 8, 2014, informational meeting at EPA in Washington, DC. As a result of this meeting and other outreach, EPA participated in several follow-up meetings with interested associations and their members as well as certain individual states during the months of June-September, 2014. Records of these meetings and copies of written comments and questions submitted by states and state associations are included in the docket for this rule.

    17 The National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the Western Governors Association, the Southern Governors Association, the Midwestern Governors Association, the Coalition of Northeastern Governors, the Environmental Council of the States, the Association of Clean Water Administrators, and the Western States Water Council. In May and June 2015, EPA held additional informational meetings with the state environmental chiefs of the National Association of Attorneys General, members of the legal network of the Environmental Council of the States, and member states of the Western Governors' Association.

    Some participants expressed concerns, which included: Whether the proposal would affect the geographic scope of TAS under the CWA; whether there is adequate evidence of congressional intent; how the proposal would affect a state's ability to dispute a TAS application; and how the proposal would affect the status of existing TAS applications. Some states also had questions about issues unique to their situations. EPA considered this input in developing the proposed rule, particularly in developing sections IV. and V.

    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from state officials.

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

    This action has tribal implications because it would directly affect tribes seeking to administer CWA regulatory programs. However, it would neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. EPA consulted and coordinated with tribal officials under the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the process of developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. A summary of that consultation and coordination follows.

    EPA initiated a tribal consultation and coordination process for this action by sending a “Notification of Consultation and Coordination” letter on April 18, 2014, to all 566 federally recognized tribes. EPA contacted all federally recognized tribes, even though only tribes with reservations can apply for TAS under the CWA, because it is possible that additional tribes could acquire reservation lands in the future. The letter invited tribal leaders and designated consultation representatives to participate in the tribal consultation and coordination process. EPA held two identical webinars concerning this matter for tribal representatives on May 22 and May 28, 2014. A total of 70 tribal representatives participated in the two webinars, and tribes and tribal organizations sent 23 comment letters to EPA.

    All tribal comments generally supported EPA's potential reinterpretation of section 518. Some comments expressed concerns about whether there would be adequate funding to help tribes administer CWA regulatory programs after they have TAS. EPA considered the tribal comments in developing this proposal, and will continue to consider tribal resource issues in its budgeting and planning process. However, EPA cannot assure tribes that additional funding will be available for a tribe to develop or implement the CWA regulatory program it seeks. A tribe choosing to administer such programs will need to carefully weigh its priorities and any available EPA assistance.

    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.

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

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

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    This proposed interpretive rule would not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. This action would affect the procedures tribes must follow in order to seek TAS for CWA regulatory purposes and would not directly affect the level of environmental protection.

    Dated: July 31, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19351 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 721 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0697; FRL-9930-33] RIN 2070-AK50 Trichloroethylene (TCE); Significant New Use Rule; TCE in Certain Consumer Products AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), EPA is proposing a significant new use rule (SNUR) for trichloroethylene (TCE). The proposed significant new use is manufacture or processing for use in a consumer product, with a proposed exception for use of TCE in cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray. Persons subject to the SNUR would be required to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing any manufacturing or processing of TCE for a significant new use. The required notification would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary based on the information available at that time, an opportunity to protect against potential unreasonable risks, if any, from that activity before it occurs.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0697, 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: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Katherine Sleasman, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-7716; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Executive Summary A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or distribute in commerce chemical substances and mixtures. 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:

    • Textile Product Mills (NAICS code 314).

    • Wood Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 321).

    • Printing and Related Support Activities (NAICS code 323).

    • Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code 325).

    • Plastics and Rubber Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 326).

    • Primary Metal Manufacturing (NAICS code 331).

    • Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 332).

    • Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS code 333).

    • Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 334).

    • Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing (NAICS code 335).

    • Transportation Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS code 336).

    • Furniture and Product Related Manufacturing (NAICS code 337).

    • Miscellaneous Manufacturing (NAICS code 339).

    • Clothing and Clothing Accessory Stores (NAICS code 488).

    • Warehousing and Storage (NAICS code 493).

    • Repair and Maintenance (NAICS code 811).

    • National Security and International Affairs (NAICS code 928).

    This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Persons who import any chemical substance governed by a final SNUR are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements and the corresponding regulations at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127; see also 19 CFR 127.28. Those persons must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA, including any SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this proposed rule on or after September 8, 2015 are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)), (see 40 CFR 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.

    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical information contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    B. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including those listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2). Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture (including import) or process the chemical substance for that use (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)). As described in Unit V., the general SNUR provisions are found at 40 CFR part 721, subpart A.

    C. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is proposing a SNUR for trichloroethylene (TCE). The proposed significant new use is: Manufacturing and processing for any use in a consumer product of TCE except for use in cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray.

    The proposed significant use EPA has identified in this unit is a use that EPA believes is not ongoing at the time of this proposed rule. EPA is requesting public comment on this proposal, and specifically on the Agency's understanding of ongoing uses for the chemical identified. EPA is particularly interested in whether there are any ongoing uses of this chemical in consumer products of which the Agency is currently unaware. EPA would welcome specific documentation of any such ongoing uses. A consumer product is defined at 40 CFR 721.3 as “a chemical substance that is directly, or as part of a mixture, sold or made available to consumers for their use in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, in or around a school, or in recreation.”

    This proposed SNUR would require persons that manufacture (including import) or process any of the chemicals for a significant new use, consistent with the requirements at 40 CFR 721.25, to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing such manufacture or process of the chemical substance for a significant new use.

    D. Why is the agency taking this action?

    This SNUR is necessary to ensure that EPA receives timely advance notice of any future manufacturing and processing of TCE for new uses that may produce changes in human and environmental exposures. The rationale and objectives for this SNUR are explained in Unit III.

    E. What are the estimated incremental impacts of this action?

    EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUR reporting requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substance included in this proposed rule. This analysis, which is available in the docket, is discussed in Unit IX., and is briefly summarized here. In the event that a SNUN is submitted, costs are estimated to be less than $8,900 per SNUN submission for large business submitters and $6,500 for small business submitters. These estimates include the cost to prepare and submit the SNUN and the payment of a user fee. The proposed SNUR would require first-time submitters of any TSCA section 5 notice to register their company and key users with the CDX reporting tool, deliver a CDX electronic signature to EPA, and establish and use a Pay.gov E-payment account before they may submit a SNUN, for a cost of $203 per firm. However, these activities are only required of first time submitters of section 5 notices. In addition, for persons exporting a substance that is the subject of a SNUR, a one-time notice to EPA must be provided for the first export or intended export to a particular country, which is estimated to be $83 per notification.

    II. Chemical Substance Subject to This Proposed Rule A. What chemical is included in the proposed SNUR?

    This proposed SNUR would apply to TCE (Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number (CASRN 79-01-6) manufactured or processed for use in a consumer product except for use in cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray. TCE is a volatile organic compound (VOC) that is produced and imported into the United States, with use estimated to be around 250 million pounds per year. It is a clear, colorless liquid that has a sweet odor and evaporates quickly (Ref. 1).

    To ascertain if TCE is used in consumer products, EPA reviewed published literature, the National Institute of Health's (NIH) Household Product Database (HPD), Safety Data Sheets (SDSs), data submitted under EPA's Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule, and data submitted under EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and communicated directly with domestic manufacturers and processors (Refs. 1 and 2). From review of these resources it was confirmed that the following consumer products containing TCE are available in retail outlets and e-commerce sites: Cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray. Cleaners and solvents can be used to clean automotive parts, fabrics, and carpets. EPA does not believe that there are any other types of consumer products containing TCE(Ref. 1).

    Following the release of the final risk assessment, EPA received a letter from PLZ Aeroscience Corporation on March 5, 2015, indicating their intent to reformulate their spray fixative product for consumers. Their letter states that they will no longer manufacture or process spray fixatives with TCE by September 1, 2015 (Ref. 3). EPA's review of the resources indicates this is the only TCE-containing spray fixative that is still used in a consumer product.

    B. What are the production volumes and uses of TCE?

    The majority (>80%) of TCE is used as an intermediate for manufacturing refrigerant chemicals. Much of the remainder, less than 14 percent, is used as a solvent for metals degreasing, leaving a relatively small percentage to account for all other uses, including its use in consumer products. In 2011, global consumption of TCE was 945 million pounds (lbs) and U.S. consumption was 255 million lbs. Nine companies, including domestic manufacturers and importers, reported a total production of 224.7 million lbs of TCE in 2011 to the CDR database. Based on the TRI data for 2012, 38 companies use TCE as a formulation component, 33 companies process TCE by repackaging the chemical, 28 companies use TCE as a manufacturing aid, and 1,113 companies use TCE for ancillary uses, such as degreasing. Overall, most U.S. consumption is attributable to two specific uses: As an intermediate for manufacturing the refrigerant (closed system) HFC-134a (a major alternative to CFC-12), and as a solvent for metal degreasing (Ref. 1).

    C. What are the potential health effects of TCE?

    A broad set of relevant studies including epidemiologic studies, animal bioassays, metabolism studies and mechanistic studies show that TCE exposure is associated with a wide array of adverse health effects. TCE has the potential to induce neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, developmental toxicity, liver toxicity, kidney toxicity, endocrine effects, and several forms of cancer (Ref. 1).

    TCE is fat soluble (lipophilic) and easily crosses biological membranes. It is readily absorbed into the body following oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure. Following oral ingestion TCE is rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract into the systemic circulation (i.e., blood), and its absorption rate is highly influenced by dose of the chemical, dosing vehicle, and stomach content. Absorption through the skin has been shown by both vapor and liquid TCE contact. Likewise, absorption following inhalation of TCE is also rapid and the inhaled absorbed dose is proportional to the exposure concentration, duration of exposure, and lung ventilation rate. Regardless of the route of exposure, TCE is widely distributed throughout the body. TCE levels can be found in many different tissues including: Brain, muscle, heart, kidney, lung, liver, and adipose tissues. Due to its lipophilicity, TCE has been found in human maternal and fetal blood and in the breast milk of lactating women (Ref. 1).

    The metabolism of TCE has been extensively studied in humans and experimental rodent models. Both humans and animals metabolize TCE to numerous toxicologically active metabolites to varying degrees. These metabolites are generated from and transported across multiple tissues and play a key role in causing TCE‐associated toxic effects that target the liver and kidney (Ref. 1).

    TCE is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by all routes of exposure as documented in EPA's TCE Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment (Ref. 4). This conclusion is based on strong cancer epidemiological data that reported an association between TCE exposure and the onset of various cancers, primarily in the kidney, liver and the immune system (i.e., non‐Hodgkin lymphoma or NHL). Further support for TCE's carcinogenic characterization comes from positive results in multiple rodent cancer bioassays in rats and mice of both sexes, similar toxicokinetics between rodents and humans, mechanistic data supporting a mutagenic mode of action for kidney tumors, and the lack of mechanistic data supporting the conclusion that any of the mode(s) of action for TCE‐induced rodent tumors are irrelevant to humans. Additional support comes from the recent evaluation of TCE's carcinogenic effects by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC classifies TCE as carcinogenic to humans (Ref. 5).

    EPA's IRIS assessment also concluded that TCE poses a potential human health hazard for non-cancer toxicity including neurotoxicity, liver and kidney effects, immunotoxicity, reproductive, and developmental effects. Also evaluated in the IRIS assessment were TCE's and its metabolites genotoxic effects. As shown through the results of in vitro and in vivo tests, TCE has the potential to bind or induce damage to the structure of DNA or chromosomes (Ref. 4).

    Neurotoxicity has been demonstrated in animal and human studies under both acute and chronic exposure conditions. Evaluation of the human studies revealed TCE‐induced neurotoxic effects including alterations in trigeminal nerve and vestibular function, auditory effects, changes in vision, alterations in cognitive function, changes in psychomotor effects, and neurodevelopmental outcomes. The strongest neurological evidence of human toxicological hazard is for changes in trigeminal nerve function or morphology and impairment of vestibular function. Multiple epidemiological studies in different populations have reported TCE‐induced abnormalities in trigeminal nerve function in humans, and various human studies have consistently reported vestibular system‐related symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, and nausea following TCE exposure (Ref. 1).

    Animals and humans exposed to TCE consistently experience liver toxicity. Specific effects include the following structural changes: Increased liver weight, increase in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) synthesis (transient), enlarged hepatocytes, enlarged nuclei, and peroxisome proliferation. Several human studies reported an association between TCE exposure and significant changes in serum liver function tests used in diagnosing liver disease, or changes in plasma or serum bile acids. There was also human evidence for hepatitis accompanying immune‐related generalized skin diseases, jaundice, hepatomegaly, hepatosplenomegaly, and liver failure in TCE‐exposed workers. For kidney effects, studies in both humans and animals have shown changes in the proximate tubules of the kidney following exposure to TCE. TCE metabolites also appear to be the causative agents that induce renal toxicity (Ref. 1).

    Immune‐related effects following TCE exposures have been observed in both animal and human studies. In general, these effects were associated with inducing enhanced immune responses as opposed to immunosuppressive effects. Human studies have reported a relationship between systemic autoimmune diseases, such as scleroderma with occupational exposure to TCE. There have also been a large number of case reports in TCE‐exposed workers developing a severe hypersensitivity skin disorder, often accompanied by systemic effects to the lymph nodes and other organs, such as hepatitis (Ref. 1).

    The toxicological literature provides support for male and female reproductive toxicity following TCE exposure. Both the epidemiological and animal studies provide evidence of adverse outcomes to female reproductive outcomes. However, much more extensive evidence exists in support of an association between TCE exposures and male reproductive toxicity. There is evidence that the metabolism of TCE in male reproductive tract tissues is associated with adverse effects on sperm measures in both humans and animals. Furthermore, human studies support an association between TCE exposure and alterations in sperm density and quality, as well as changes in sexual drive or function and altered serum endocrine levels (Ref. 1).

    An evaluation of the overall weight and strength of the evidence of the human and animal developmental toxicity data suggests an association between pre‐ and/or post-natal TCE exposures and potential adverse developmental outcomes. TCE‐induced heart malformations in animals have been identified as the most sensitive developmental toxicity endpoint for TCE. Human studies examined the possible association of TCE with various prenatal effects. These adverse effects of developmental TCE exposure could include death (spontaneous abortion, perinatal death, pre- or post-implantation loss, resorptions), decreased growth (low birth weight, small for gestational age), and congenital malformations, in particular cardiac defects, and postnatal effects such as growth, survival, developmental neurotoxicity, developmental immunotoxicity, and childhood cancers. There have also been some epidemiological studies that have consistently reported an increased incidence of birth defects in TCE‐exposed populations from exposure to contaminated water. As for human developmental neurotoxicity, studies collectively suggest that the developing brain is susceptible to TCE toxicity. These studies have reported an association with TCE exposure and central nervous system birth defects and postnatal effects such as delayed newborn reflexes, impaired learning or memory, aggressive behavior, hearing impairment, speech impairment, encephalopathy, impaired executive and motor function and attention deficit (Ref. 1).

    D. What are the potential routes and sources of exposure to TCE?

    The main route of exposure for TCE is inhalation due to its chemical properties and the nature of the consumer products. However, EPA recognizes that highly volatile compounds such as TCE may also be absorbed through the skin. (Ref. 1).

    In EPA's final risk assessment for TCE, EPA examined acute risks for consumer exposures in residential settings. The assessment identified risks to consumers and residential bystanders from use of solvent degreasers and protective spray coatings, also referred to as spray fixatives, because of either their high TCE content or high potential for human exposure. TCE is also present in film cleaners, and mirror edge sealants, but these products were not evaluated because of either their low TCE content, less frequent use, or low exposure potential. The final risk assessment calculated indoor air concentrations using the Exposure and Fast Assessment Screening Tool Version 2 (E-FAST2) Consumer Exposure Model (CEM) for the consumer exposure. EPA used E-FAST2 CEM because of the lack of available emissions and monitoring data for the TCE containing consumer products (Ref. 1).

    For the spray fixatives and solvent degreasers used by consumers who experience exposures, there is the potential for acute risks that could result from even one improper use of these products containing TCE. Most consumers would be unaware of the potential toxicity of consumer products containing TCE. Consequently, insufficient and inadequate hazard communication may lead to incorrect use and increased consumer and bystander exposures. Even if consumers are aware of such potential hazards, they may not take appropriate precautions or research the appropriate resources in which these precautions are addressed. Of particular concern is that TCE has harmful effects that occur below the odor threshold, meaning that smelling the chemical in the home environment is not a sufficient approach to avoid hazardous effects (Ref. 1).

    III. Rationale and Objectives A. Rationale

    EPA is concerned about the adverse health effects of TCE resulting from commercial and consumer uses of the chemical substance identified for a risk assessment as part of EPA's Existing Chemicals Management Program. EPA identified a work plan of 83 chemicals including TCE for further assessment under the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments in March 2012, to help focus and direct the activities of its Existing Chemicals Management Program. EPA reviewed readily available information on TCE including uses, physical and chemical properties, fate, exposure potential, and associated hazards to humans and the environment. TCE was selected based on concerns for its human health hazard (e.g., human carcinogen) and its exposure profile (i.e., widely used in consumer products and detected in drinking water, indoor environments, surface water, ambient air, groundwater, and soil) using OPPT's TSCA Work Plan screening methodology (Ref. 6). In EPA's final risk assessment released on June 25, 2014, the Agency identified risks to workers using TCE and non-workers for degreasers and a spot-cleaner in dry cleaning uses, and EPA also identified health risks to consumers using spray aerosol degreasers and spray fixatives (Ref. 1).

    EPA believes that any additional use of this chemical substance in consumer products could significantly increase human exposure, and that such exposures should not occur without an opportunity for EPA review and control as appropriate. However, as discussed in Unit II, based on review of SDSs and the NIH's HPD, EPA believes that cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray contain TCE. EPA believes that other consumer products do not presently contain TCE, other than spray fixative product use which will be discontinued by September 1, 2015 as described in Unit II.A.

    Consistent with EPA's past practice for issuing SNURs under TSCA section 5(a)(2), EPA's decision to propose a SNUR for a particular chemical use need not be based on an extensive evaluation of the hazard, exposure, or potential risk associated with that use. Rather, the Agency action is based on EPA's determination that if the use begins or resumes, it may present a risk that EPA should evaluate under TSCA before the manufacturing or processing for that use begins. Since the new use does not currently exist, deferring a detailed consideration of potential risks or hazards related to that use is an effective use of resources. If a person decides to begin manufacturing or processing the chemical for the use, the notice to EPA allows EPA to evaluate the use according to the specific parameters and circumstances surrounding that intended use.

    B. Objectives

    Based on the considerations in Unit III.A., EPA wants to achieve the following objectives with regard to the significant new use(s) that are designated in this proposed rule:

    1. EPA would receive notice of any person's intent to manufacture or process TCE for the described significant new use before that activity begins.

    2. EPA would have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing or processing TCE for the described significant new use.

    3. EPA would be able to regulate prospective manufacturers or processors of TCE before the described significant new use of the chemical substance occurs, provided that regulation is warranted pursuant to TSCA section 5(e), 5(f), 6 or 7.

    IV. Significant New Use Determination

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors including:

    1. The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.

    2. The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

    3. The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

    4. The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.

    In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2), the statute authorizes EPA to consider any other relevant factors.

    To determine what would constitute a significant new use of TCE compounds subject to this proposed rule, as discussed in this unit, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the substance, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, and the four factors listed in section 5(a)(2) of TSCA. EPA has preliminarily determined as the significant new use: Manufacture or processing for any use in a consumer product except for use in cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray. Because TCE is not used in consumer products (with the limited exceptions of use in cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, pepper spray, and (before September 1, 2015) spray fixatives), EPA believes new use in consumer products could increase the magnitude and duration of human exposure to TCE. Exposure to TCE through inhalation may lead to a wide array of adverse health effects, such as neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, developmental toxicity, liver toxicity, kidney toxicity, endocrine effects, and several forms of cancer, as further explained in Unit II.C., and because of these adverse effects EPA would like the opportunity to evaluate such potential uses in consumer products for any associated risks or hazards that might exist before those uses would begin.

    V. Applicability of General Provisions

    General provisions for SNURs appear under 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the final rule.

    Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons subject to SNURs must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of Premanufacture Notices (PMNs) under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submissions requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA may take regulatory action under TSCA section 5(e), 5(f), 6 or 7 to control the activities on which it has received the SNUN. If EPA does not take action, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to explain in the Federal Register its reasons for not taking action.

    Persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance identified in a proposed or final SNUR are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b). The regulations that interpret TSCA section 12(b) appear at 40 CFR part 707, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 707.60(b) this proposed SNUR does not trigger export notification for articles. Persons who import a chemical substance identified in a final SNUR are subject to the TSCA section 13 import certification requirements, codified at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127; see also 19 CFR 127.28. Those persons must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA, including any SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B.

    VI. Applicability of Rule to Uses Occurring Before Effective Date of the Final Rule

    As discussed in the Federal Register of April 24, 1990 (55 FR 17376; FRL-3658-5) (Ref. 7), EPA has decided that the intent of section 5(a)(1)(B) of TSCA is best served by designating a use as a significant new use as of the date of publication of the proposed rule rather than as of the effective date of the final rule. If uses begun after publication of the proposed rule were considered ongoing rather than new, it would be difficult for EPA to establish SNUR notice requirements, because a person could defeat the SNUR by initiating the proposed significant new use before the rule became final, and then argue that the use was ongoing as of the effective date of the final rule. Thus, persons who begin commercial manufacture or processing of the chemical substance(s) that would be regulated through this proposed rule, if finalized, would have to cease any such activity before the effective date of the rule if and when finalized. To resume their activities, these persons would have to comply with all applicable SNUR notice requirements and wait until the notice review period, including all extensions, expires. Uses arising after the publication of the proposed rule are distinguished from uses that exist at publication of the proposed rule. The former would be new uses, the latter ongoing uses, except that uses that are ongoing as of the publication of the proposed rule would not be considered ongoing uses if they have ceased by the date of issuance of a final rule. However, recognizing the use in a consumer product of TCE in spray fixatives will cease by September 1, 2015 as described in Unit II.A., EPA considers September 1, 2015 as the date from which the significant new use with respect only to such spray fixatives would be designated. To the extent that additional ongoing uses are found in the course of rulemaking, EPA would exclude those specific uses from the final SNUR. EPA has promulgated provisions to allow persons to comply with the final SNUR before the effective date. If a person were to meet the conditions of advance compliance under 40 CFR 721.45(h), that person would be considered to have met the requirements of the final SNUR for those activities.

    VII. Test Data and Other Information

    EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not usually require developing any particular test data before submission of a SNUN. There are two exceptions:

    1. Development of test data is required where the chemical substance subject to the SNUR is also subject to a test rule under TSCA section 4 (see TSCA section 5(b)(1)); and

    2. Development of test data may be necessary where the chemical substance has been listed under TSCA section 5(b)(4) (see TSCA section 5(b)(2)).

    In the absence of a section 4 test rule or a section 5(b)(4) listing covering the chemical substance, persons are required to submit only test data in their possession or control and to describe any other data known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (15 U.S.C. 2604(d); 40 CFR 721.25, and 40 CFR 720.50). However, as a general matter, EPA recommends that SNUN submitters include data that would permit a reasoned evaluation of risks posed by the chemical substance during its manufacture, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal. EPA encourages persons to consult with the agency before submitting a SNUN. As part of this optional pre-notice consultation, EPA would discuss specific data it believes may be useful in evaluating a significant new use. SNUNs submitted for significant new uses without any test data may increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA section 5(e) to prohibit or limit activities associated with this chemical.

    SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs that provide detailed information on:

    • Human exposure and environmental releases that may result from the significant new uses of the chemical substance;

    • Potential benefits of the chemical substance; and

    • Information on risks posed by the chemical substances compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.

    VIII. SNUN Submissions

    EPA recommends that submitters consult with the Agency prior to submitting a SNUN to discuss what data may be useful in evaluating a significant new use. Discussions with the Agency prior to submission can afford ample time to conduct any tests that might be helpful in evaluating risks posed by the substance. According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 721.25 and 40 CFR 720.40. E-PMN software is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems.

    IX. Economic Analysis A. SNUNs

    EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUR reporting requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substance included in this proposed rule (Ref. 2). In the event that a SNUN is submitted, costs are estimated at approximately $8,900 per SNUN submission for large business submitters and $6,500 for small business submitters. These estimates include the cost to prepare and submit the SNUN, and the payment of a user fee. Businesses that submit a SNUN would be subject to either a $2,500 user fee required by 40 CFR 700.45(b)(2)(iii), or, if they are a small business with annual sales of less than $40 million when combined with those of the parent company (if any), a reduced user fee of $100 (40 CFR 700.45(b)(1)). EPA's complete economic analysis is available in the public docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 2).

    B. Export Notification

    Under section 12(b) of TSCA and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 707, subpart D, exporters must notify EPA if they export or intend to export a chemical substance or mixture for which, among other things, a rule has been proposed or promulgated under TSCA section 5. For persons exporting a substance that is the subject of a SNUR, a one-time notice to EPA must be provided for the first export or intended export to a particular country. The total costs of export notification will vary by chemical, depending on the number of required notifications (i.e., the number of countries to which the chemical is exported). While EPA is unable to make any estimate of the likely number of export notifications for the chemical covered in this proposed SNUR, as stated in the accompanying economic analysis of this proposed SNUR, the estimated cost of the export notification requirement on a per unit basis is $83.

    X. Alternatives

    Before proposing this SNUR, EPA considered the following alternative regulatory action: Promulgate a TSCA Section 8(a) Reporting Rule.

    Under a TSCA section 8(a) rule, EPA could, among other things, generally require persons to report information to the agency when they intend to manufacture or process a listed chemical for a specific use or any use. However, for TCE, the use of TSCA section 8(a) rather than SNUR authority would have several limitations. First, if EPA were to require reporting under TSCA section 8(a) instead of TSCA section 5(a), EPA would not have the opportunity to review human and environmental hazards and exposures associated with the proposed significant new use and, if necessary, take immediate follow-up regulatory action under TSCA section 5(e) or 5(f) to prohibit or limit the activity before it begins. In addition, EPA may not receive important information from small businesses, because such firms generally are exempt from TSCA section 8(a) reporting requirements (see TSCA sections 8(a)(1)(A) and 8(a)(1)(B)). In view of the level of health concerns about TCE if used for the proposed significant new use, EPA believes that a TSCA section 8(a) rule for this substance would not meet EPA's regulatory objectives.

    XI. Request for Comment A. Do you have comments or information about ongoing uses?

    EPA welcomes comment on all aspects of this proposed rule. EPA based its understanding of the use profile of these chemicals on the published literature, the 2012 CDR submissions, market research, discussions with manufacturers, and review of SDSs. To confirm EPA's understanding, the Agency is requesting public comment on the EPA's understanding that cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray contain TCE. The Agency is also requesting public comment if any of the listed uses that contain TCE are no longer available to consumers. EPA believes that other consumer products do not contain TCE, however, EPA is interested in information indicating that there are other ongoing uses of TCE in consumer products. In providing comments on an ongoing use of TCE in a consumer product, it would be helpful if you provide sufficient information for EPA to substantiate any assertions of use.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. It is EPA's policy to include all comments received in the public docket without change or further notice to the commenter and to make the comments available on-line at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless a comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 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 that you mail to EPA 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, subpart B.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).

    ii. Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or section number.

    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    XII. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    1. U.S. EPA. Final Risk Assessment on Trichloroethylene (TCE). June 25, 2014. 2. U.S. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Significant New Use Rule for Trichloroethylene. February 19, 2015. 3. Letter from PLZ Aeroscience Corporation. March 5, 2015. 4. U.S. EPA. (2011). Toxicological Review of Trichloroethylene (CAS No. 79-01-6). EPA/635/R-09/011F. Integrated Risk Information System, Washington, DC. 5. IARC (2014). International Agency for Research on Cancer. Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Cadmium, Trichloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene, and Some Chlorinated Agents, Volume 106. World Health Organization, Lyon, France. 6. U.S. EPA. (2014). TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments: 2014 Update. Washington. DC. 7. U.S. EPA. Significant New Uses of Certain Chemical Substances. Federal Register of April 24, 1990, (55 FR 173776) (FRL-3658-5). XIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This proposed SNUR is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of the Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Order 12866 and 13563, entitled “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The information collection activities associated with existing chemical SNURs are already approved by OMB under OMB control number 2070-0038 (EPA ICR No. 1188); and the information collection activities associated with export notifications are already approved by OMB under OMB control number 2070-0030 (EPA ICR No. 0795). If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to be less than 100 hours per response, and the estimated burden for export notifications is less than 1.5 hours per notification. In both cases, burden is estimated to be reduced for submitters who have already registered to use the electronic submission system.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related collection instrument, or form, if applicable.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., I hereby certify that promulgation of this SNUR would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale supporting this conclusion is as follows.

    A SNUR applies to any person (including small or large entities) who intends to engage in any activity described in the rule as a “significant new use.” By definition of the word “new” and based on all information currently available to EPA, it appears that no small or large entities presently engage in such activities. Since this SNUR will require a person who intends to engage in such activity in the future to first notify EPA by submitting a SNUN, no economic impact will occur unless someone files a SNUN to pursue a significant new use in the future or forgoes profits by avoiding or delaying the significant new use. Although some small entities may decide to conduct such activities in the future, EPA cannot presently determine how many, if any, there may be. However, EPA's experience to date is that, in response to the promulgation of SNURs covering over 1,000 chemical substances, the Agency receives only a handful of notices per year. During the six year period from 2005-2010, only three submitters self-identified as small in their SNUN submission (Ref. 2). EPA believes the cost of submitting a SNUN is relatively small compared to the cost of developing and marketing a chemical new to a firm or marketing a new use of the chemical and that the requirement to submit a SNUN generally does not have a significant economic impact.

    Therefore, EPA believes that the potential economic impact of complying with this proposed SNUR is not expected to be significant or adversely impact a substantial number of small entities. In a SNUR that published as a final rule on August 8, 1997 (62 FR 42690) (FRL-5735-4), the Agency presented its general determination that proposed and final SNURs are not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, which was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reason to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government would be impacted by this rulemaking. As such, the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, do not apply to this action.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

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

    This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have any effect (i.e., there will be no increase or decrease in authority or jurisdiction) on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this action is not intended to address environmental health or safety risks for children.

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

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Since this action does not involve any technical standards, section 12(d) of NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not apply to this action.

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

    This proposed rule does not invoke special consideration of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), because EPA has determined that this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 30, 2015. Wendy C. Hamnett, Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows:

    PART 721—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

    2. Add § 721.10851 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10851 Trichloroethylene.

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance trichloroethylene (CAS 79-01-6) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new use described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) Manufacture or processing for use in a consumer product except for use in cleaners and solvent degreasers, film cleaners, hoof polishes, lubricants, mirror edge sealants, and pepper spray.

    (b) [Reserved]

    [FR Doc. 2015-19348 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 54 [WC Docket Nos. 10-90 and 14-259; Report 3025] Petition for Reconsideration of Action in a Rulemaking Proceeding AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petition for reconsideration.

    SUMMARY:

    A Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by Harold Mordkofsky, on behalf of Halstad Telephone Company.

    DATES:

    Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before August 24, 2015. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before September 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alexander Minard, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400, email: [email protected], TTY (202) 418-0484.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 3025, released July 20, 2015. The full text of Report No. 3025 is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC or may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a copy of this document pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this document does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

    Subjects: Connect America Fund; Rural Broadband Experiments, released by the Commission on June 15, 2015, in WC Docket Nos. 10-90 and 14-259, and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also § 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules.

    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19374 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    80 152 Friday, August 7, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request August 3, 2015.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by September 8, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Farm Service Agency

    Title: Request for Aerial Photography.

    OMB Control Number: 0560-0176.

    Summary of Collection: The Farm Service Agency (FSA) Aerial Photography Field Office (APFO) has the authority to coordinate aerial photography work in USDA, develop and carry out aerial photography and remote sensing programs and the Agency's aerial photography flying contract programs. The film APFO secures is public domain and reproductions are available at cost to any customer with a need. FSA will collect information using the following three forms FSA-441, Request for Aerial Imagery, FSA 441B, Customer Digital Print Form, and FSA 441C APFO Service Quality Survey.

    Need and Use of the Information: FSA will collect the name, address, contact name, telephone, fax, email, customer code, agency code, purchase order number, credit card number/exp. date and amount remitted/PO amount. Customers have the option of placing orders by mail, fax, telephone, and walk-in. Furnishing this information requires the customer to research and prepare their request before submitting it to APFO. Information collected is used to process fiscal obligations, communicate with the customer, process the request, and ship the requested products.

    Description of Respondents: Farms; Individuals or household; Business or other for-profit; Federal Government; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 12,120.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting; Annually; Other (when ordering).

    Total Burden Hours: 3,770.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19406 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Sonora, California. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pts/specialprojects/racweb.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held September 10, 2015, from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

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

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beth Martinez, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 209-532-3671, extension 321; or via email at [email protected]

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is:

    1. To vote on project proposals; and

    2. Make recommendations to the Forest Service from the Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties RAC.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by at least a week in advance to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Beth Martinez, RAC Coordinator, Stanislaus National Forest, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, California 95370; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to ATTN: Beth Martinez at (209) 533-1890.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Jeanne M. Higgins, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19462 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Sonora, California. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pts/specialprojects/racweb.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held August 31, 2015, from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

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

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beth Martinez, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 209-532-3671, extension 321; or via email at [email protected]

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is for project proponents to make oral presentations about their projects.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by at least a week in advance to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Beth Martinez, RAC Coordinator, Stanislaus National Forest, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, California 95370; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to ATTN: Beth Martinez at 209-533-1890.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Jeanne M. Higgins Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19461 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business-Cooperative Service Inviting Rural Business Development Grant Program Applications for Grants To Provide Technical Assistance for Rural Transportation Systems AGENCY:

    Rural Business—Cooperative Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Initial Notice; Correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This document corrects an error in the initial notice that appeared in the Federal Register on July 28, 2015, entitled “Inviting Rural Business Development Grant Program Applications for Grants to Provide Technical Assistance for Rural Transportation Systems.” On page 44928, first column, the incorrect application deadline date was used and does not match with the date under the DATES section of the initial notice.

    DATES:

    This document is effective August 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Specialty Programs Division, Business Programs, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., MS 3226, Room 4204-South, Washington, DC 20250-3226, telephone (202) 720-1400.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In FR Doc. 2015-18391 of July 28, 2015 (80 FR 44925), make the following corrections:

    1. On page 44928, in the first column, at the fifty-first line, remove “September 28” and add “August 27” in its place.

    Dated: July 31, 2015. Lillian E. Salerno, Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19405 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Energy Answers Arecibo, LLC: Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Notice of a Public Meeting AGENCY:

    Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of a draft environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), has issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Energy Answers Arecibo, LLC's (Energy Answers) proposed Waste to Energy Project (Project) in Arecibo, Puerto Rico. RUS is issuing the Draft EIS to inform interested parties and the general public about the proposed Project and to invite the public to comment on the scope, proposed action, and other issues addressed in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS addresses the construction, operation, and maintenance of Energy Answers' proposed Project, a waste-to-energy generation and resource recovery facility in the Cambalache Ward of Arecibo, Puerto Rico. RUS prepared the EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended, the Council on Environmental Quality's Regulation for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and RUS's Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 CFR part 1794). RUS will hold a public hearing to receive oral comments on the Draft EIS.

    DATES:

    The public comment period on the Draft EIS will be announced in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) EIS receipt notice, which will be published in the Federal Register. RUS will consider all substantive written comments on the Draft EIS received or postmarked by that date. Agencies, interested parties, and the general public are invited to submit comments on the Draft EIS at any time during the public comment period. A public hearing also is scheduled for August 20, 2015 from 5 to 8 p.m. at the Arecibo Country Club in Arecibo, 00612, Puerto Rico. Oral comments submitted during the hearing will be restricted to a specified time frame to ensure that all interested parties have the opportunity to speak. Doors will open at 4:30 p.m. for registration; RUS will receive oral comments immediately following a short presentation at 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public hearing will be held at the Arecibo Country Club in Arecibo, Puerto Rico, 00612. Copies of the Draft EIS will be available for public viewing at the Arecibo Public Library (Nicolas Nabal Barreto), located at: 210 Santiago Iglesias Pantin Ave., Arecibo, Puerto Rico 00612. Parties wishing to be placed on the Project mailing list or those wishing to participate more directly with RUS as a “consulting party” in Section 106 review may submit a written request to: Ms. Lauren McGee Rayburn, Environmental Scientist, Rural Utilities Service, 84 Coxe Ave., Suite 1E, Ashville, North Carolina 28801, telephone: (202) 695-2540, fax: (202) 690-0649, or email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the proposed Project and the Draft EIS process, please contact Ms. Lauren McGee Rayburn, Environmental Scientist, Rural Utilities Service, 84 Coxe Ave., Suite 1E, Ashville, North Carolina 28801, telephone: (202) 695-2540, fax: (202) 690-0649, or email: [email protected] Parties wishing to be placed on the Project mailing list for future information and to receive copies of the EIS should also contact Ms. Rayburn.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Energy Answers plans to request financial assistance for the proposed Project from RUS. Completing the EIS is one of RUS's requirements in processing Energy Answers' pending application, along with other technical and financial considerations. Energy Answers proposes to a construct a waste to energy generation and resource recovery facility in the Cambalache Ward of Arecibo, Puerto Rico. The proposed facility would process approximately 2100 tons of municipal waste per day and generate a net capacity of 77 megawatts (MW). The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority will purchase power generated from the facility. The preferred location of the facility is the site of a former paper mill and would cover approximately 79.6 acres of the 90-acre parcel. The proposal would include the following facility components: A municipal solid waste receiving and processing building; processed refuse fuel storage building; boiler and steam turbine; emission control system; ash processing and storage building; and other associated infrastructure and buildings. Two other connected actions, which would be constructed by other utilities, include installation of an approximately 2.0-mile raw water line and construction of a 38 kilovolt (kV) transmission line approximately 0.8 miles in length. The connected actions will be addressed in the proposed Project's EIS.

    In accordance with 7 CFR 1794.74 and 40 CFR 1502.21, RUS incorporates by reference the environmental impact analyses and associated documentation prepared by the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company (PRIDCO) and the USEPA where appropriate. PRIDCO served as a lead agency in preparing an EIS under the Puerto Rico Environmental Public Policy Act, Article 4(B)(3), Law No. 416 (September 22, 2004). The USEPA completed air quality analyses and issued a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit for the proposed Project on June 11, 2013. As applicable, the EIS will document changes in the affected environment and environmental consequences that may have changed since issuance of the PRIDCO-EIS and USEPA PSD permit.

    Because the proposed Project may involve action in floodplains or wetlands, this Notice also serves as a notice of proposed floodplain or wetland action. The draft EIS will include a floodplain/wetland assessment and, if required, a floodplain/wetland statement of findings will be issued with the Final EIS.

    RUS has determined that its action regarding the proposed Project would be an undertaking subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470 and its implementing regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR part 800). As part of its broad environmental review process, RUS must take into account the effect of the proposed Project on historic properties in accordance with Section 106. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3), RUS is using its procedures for public involvement under NEPA to meet its responsibilities to solicit and consider the views of the public during Section 106 review. Accordingly, comments submitted in response to this Notice will inform RUS decision-making in its Section 106 review process. Any party wishing to participate more directly with RUS as a “consulting party” in Section 106 review may submit a written request to the RUS contact provided in this Notice.

    The Draft EIS is available in both Spanish and English for review at the following Web site: http://www.rd.usda.gov/publications/environmental-studies/impact-statements/arecibo-waste-energy-generation-and-resource. The Draft EIS will be available for review and comment for 45 days after the USEPA's EIS receipt notice in the Federal Register. Following this review period, RUS may prepare a Final EIS. After a 30-day review period of the Final EIS, RUS may publish a Record of Decision (ROD). Notices announcing the availability of the Final EIS and ROD will be published in the Federal Register and in local newspapers.

    Any final action by RUS related to the proposed Project will be subject to, and contingent upon, compliance with all relevant presidential executive orders and federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations in addition to the completion of the environmental review requirements as prescribed in RUS's Environmental Policies and Procedures, 7 CFR part 1794, as amended.

    Christopher A. Mclean, Assistant Administrator—Electric Programs, Rural Utilities Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19455 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Arizona Advisory Committee To Receive Information From Police Agencies and Persons Involved in the Administration of Justice Regarding Police Community Relations AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Arizona Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held on Tuesday, August 25, 2015. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to hear from police agencies and persons involved in the administration of justice regarding police community relations. The meeting will be held at the Native American Connections, 4520 N. Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85012. It is scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 5:00 p.m.

    Members of the public are entitled to make comments in the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments. The comments must be received in the Western Regional Office of the Commission by September 25, 2015. The address is Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 N. Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Persons wishing to email their comments may do so by sending them to Peter Minarik, Regional Director, Western Regional Office, at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information should contact the Western Regional Office, at (213) 894-3437, (or for hearing impaired TDD 913-551-1414), or by email to [email protected] Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=235 and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Western Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Western Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda: Presentations by local police agencies Presentations by persons and organizations involved in the administration of justice Open Comment Adjournment DATES:

    Tuesday, August 25, 2015 from 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. PST.

    ADDRESSES:

    Native American Connections, 4520 N. Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85012.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peter Minarik, DFO, at (213) 894-3437 or [email protected]

    Dated: August 3, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19403 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-0-1P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Sunshine Act Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    United States Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Commission Business Meeting.

    DATES:

    Date and Time: Friday, August 14, 2015; 10:00 a.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    Place: 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 1150, Washington, DC.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591.

    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at [email protected] at least seven business days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting Agenda

    This meeting is open to the public.

    I. Approval of Agenda II. Program Planning • Budget Status • OCRE Contractor Update • Discussion and vote on 2015 Statutory Enforcement Report on The State of Civil Rights at Immigration Detention Facilities, Part A and B • Discussion and vote on part A of Peaceful Coexistence report • Discussion and vote on two topics for 2016 Commission reports • Discussion and vote on dates for Future Commission Business Meetings III. Management and Operations • Staff Director Report • Reports by SAC Chairs for Nevada and Illinois IV. State Advisory Committee (SAC) Appointments • Illinois • Maryland • South Dakota • Tennessee • Wisconsin V. Adjourn Meeting Dated: August 4, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19541 Filed 8-5-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Arizona Advisory Committee To Receive Opinion and Perspective From Members of the Community Regarding Crime Reduction, Police Training, and Police Community Relations AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Arizona Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held on Wednesday, August 26, 2015. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to receive opinion and perspective from members of the community regarding crime reduction, police training, and police community relations. The meeting will be held at the Cholla Public Library, 10050 Metro Parkway E., Phoenix, AZ 85051. It is scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 5:30 p.m.

    Members of the public are entitled to make comments in the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments. The comments must be received in the Western Regional Office of the Commission by September 30, 2015. The address is Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 N. Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Persons wishing to email their comments may do so by sending them to Peter Minarik, Regional Director, Western Regional Office, at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information should contact the Western Regional Office, at (213) 894-3437, (or for hearing impaired TDD 913-551-1414), or by email to [email protected] Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=235 and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Western Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Western Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda: Session 1: 1:30 Invited panelists from the community Session 2: 2:30 Invited panelists from the community Session 3: 3:30 Invited panelists from the community 4:30 Open Comment Adjournment DATES:

    Wednesday, August 26, 2015 from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. PST.

    ADDRESSES:

    Cholla Public Library, 10050 Metro Parkway E., Phoenix, AZ 85051

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peter Minarik, DFO, at (213) 894-3437 or [email protected]

    Dated: August 3, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19404 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [Docket No. 150720624-5624-01] Privacy Act of 1974, New System of Records AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Privacy Act system of records; “COMMERCE/NOAA-23; Economic Data Collection Program for West Coast Groundfish Trawl Catch Share Program off the coast of Washington, Oregon, and California.”

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the Department of Commerce (Department) proposal for a new system of records under the Privacy Act. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC), is creating a system of records for the mandatory collection of economic data in the West Coast Region consisting of the Economic Data Collection (EDC) for West Coast Groundfish Trawl Catch Share Program. Information will be collected from individuals under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the American Fisheries Act. This record system is necessary to evaluate information on costs of fishing and processing, revenues for harvesters and processors, and employment information.

    DATES:

    To be considered, written comments must be submitted on or before September 8, 2015. Unless comments are received, the system of records will become effective as proposed on the date of publication of a subsequent notice in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be mailed to Erin Steiner, NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, FRAM Division, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, WA 98112.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice announces the Department of Commerce (Department) proposal for a new system of records under the Privacy Act. NMFS' NWFSC is creating a system of records for the EDC for the West Coast Groundfish Trawl Catch Share Program. This record system is necessary to evaluate information on costs of fishing and processing, revenues for harvesters and processors, and employment information.

    Under the EDC, information would be requested from individuals under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the 50 CFR 660.114. This collection would apply to all owners, lessees, and charterers of a catcher vessel registered to a limited entry trawl endorsed permit, a mothership vessel registered to a mothership permit, or a catcher-processor vessel registered to a catcher-processor-endorsed limited entry trawl permit; owners of a first receiver site license; and owners and lessees of a shorebased processor that received round or headed and gutted individual fishing quota groundfish species or whiting from a first receiver are required to submit an EDC to the NWFSC Economics and Social Science Research Program (ESSR).

    The collection of information is necessary to identify participants and their roles in these fisheries and to evaluate the programs in which they participate. NMFS would collect information from individuals in order to evaluate the economic effects of fisheries programs, specifically the effects on the harvesting and processing sectors, and to determine the economic efficiency and distributional effects of the programs.

    COMMERCE/NOAA-23 SYSTEM NAME:

    COMMENRCE/NOAA-23, Economic Data Collection (EDC) Program for West Coast Groundfish Trawl Catch Share Program off the coast of Washington, Oregon, and California.

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

    Moderate.

    The EDC system is designed as follows: (1) Participants are required to submit an annual EDC to the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) Economics and Social Science Research Program (ESSR); (2) Upon request, the NWFSC will provide the EDC information with individual identifiers to NOAA Office for Enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard; and (3) Upon request, NWFSC ESSR will provide the EDC information with individual identifiers to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to assist in anti-trust analysis of the Program.

    SYSTEM LOCATIONS:

    NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. East, Seattle, WA 98112

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    Data from 2009 and 2010: All owners, lessees, and charterers of a catcher vessel registered to a limited entry trawl endorsed permit at any time in 2009 or 2010; all owners, lessees, and charterers of a mothership vessel that received whiting in 2009 or 2010 as recorded in NMFS' North Pacific (NORPAC) database; all owners, lessees, and charterers of a catcher processor vessel that harvested whiting in 2009 or 2010 as recorded in NMFS' NORPAC database; all owners and lessees of a shorebased processor and all buyers that received groundfish or whiting harvested with a limited entry trawl permit as listed in the Pacific Fisheries Information Network (PacFIN) database in 2009 or 2010.

    Data from 2011 and beyond: All owners, lessees, and charterers of a catcher vessel registered to a limited entry trawl endorsed permit at any time in 2011 and beyond; all owners, lessees, and charterers of a mothership (MS) vessel registered to an MS permit at any time in 2011 and beyond; all owners, lessees, and charterers of a catcher processor vessel registered to a catcher-processor (C/P)-endorsed limited entry trawl permit at any time in 2011 and beyond; all owners of a first receiver site license in 2011 and beyond; all owners and lessees of a shorebased processor (as defined under “processor” at § 660.11, for purposes of EDC) that received round or headed-and-gutted individual fishing quota species groundfish or whiting from a first receiver in 2011 and beyond.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    System would include records for historical, annual, and current EDCs including financial information, harvest activity and cost, product and cost information, labor cost information for crew, and sales information. The EDCs request data on cost, revenue, ownership, and employment and will be used to study the economic impacts of the West Coast Trawl Groundfish Catch Share Program on affected harvesters, processors, and communities, as well as net benefits to the nation.

    Each report would include the following: The name, title, telephone number, fax number, and email address of the person completing the EDC; name and address of the owner or lessee of the plant or vessel; Federal fisheries permit number; Federal processor permit number; Coast Guard vessel registration number or state vessel registration number, Federal license number, state buyer number, and an assigned internal individual identifier.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. (Magnuson-Stevens Act), Section 313(j) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1853; 50 CFR 660.114.

    PURPOSE(S):

    This information will allow NMFS to evaluate the economic effects of the West Coast Trawl Groundfish Catch Share Program, specifically the harvesting and processing sectors; the determination of the economic efficiency and distributional effects of the Program.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS OF AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the PrivacyAct, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the Department of Commerce (Department). The records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed as a routine use as stated below. The Department will, when so authorized, make the determination as to the relevancy of a record prior to its decision to disclose a document.

    1. In the event that a system of records maintained by the Department to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law or contract, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute or contract, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, or the necessity to protect an interest of the Department, the relevant records in the system of records, may be referred to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, State, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute or contract, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, or protecting the interest of the Department.

    2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed in the course of presenting evidence to a court, magistrate, hearing officer or administrative tribunal, including disclosures to opposing counsel in the course of settlement negotiations, administrative appeals and hearings.

    3. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to a Member of Congress submitting a request involving an individual when the individual has requested assistance from the Member with respect to the subject matter of the record.

    4. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to the Department of Justice in connection with determining whether the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) requires disclosure thereof.

    5. A record in this system will be disclosed to the Department of Treasury for the purpose of reporting and recouping delinquent debts owed the United States pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.

    6. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to a contractor of the Department having need for the information in the performance of the contract but not operating a system of records within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).

    7. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to the applicable Fishery Management Council (Council) staff and contractors tasked with the development of analyses to support Council decisions about Fishery Management Programs.

    8. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities and persons when: (1) It is suspected or determined that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or whether systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    9. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to assist in anti-trust analysis of the fisheries programs.

    10. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, state or local agency maintaining civil, criminal or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary to obtain information relevant to a Department decision concerning the assignment, hiring or retention of an individual, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit.

    11. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, state, local, or international agency, in response to its request, in connection with the assignment, hiring or retention of an individual, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an individual, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.

    12. A record in this system of records which contains medical information may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the medical advisor of any individual submitting a request for access to the record under the Act and 15 CFR part 4b if, in the sole judgment of the Department, disclosure could have an adverse effect upon the individual, under the provision of 5 U.S.C. 552a(f)(3) and implementing regulations at 15 CFR 4b.6.

    13. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Office of Management and Budget in connection with the review of private relief legislation as set forth in OMB Circular No. A-19 at any stage of the legislative coordination and clearance process as set forth in that Circular.

    14. A record in this system may be transferred, as a routine use, to the Office of Personnel Management: for personnel research purposes; as a data source for management information; for the production of summary descriptive statistics and analytical studies in support of the function for which the records are collected and maintained; or for related manpower studies.

    15. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Administrator, General Services Administration (GSA), or his designee, during an inspection of records conducted by GSA as part of that agency's responsibility to recommend improvements in records management practices and programs, under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. Such disclosure shall be made in accordance with the GSA regulations governing inspection of records for this purpose, and any other relevant (i.e. GSA or Commerce) directive. Such disclosure shall not be used to make determinations about individuals

    DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES:

    Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) may be made from this system to “consumer reporting agencies” as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) and the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)).

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE:

    Computerized data base; CDs; back-up files stored on tape; paper records in file folders in locked metal cabinets and/or locked rooms.

    RETRIEVABILITY:

    Records are organized and retrieved by NMFS internal identification number, name of owner or lessee, vessel permit number, buyer identification number, vessel name, or plant name. Records can be accessed by any file element or any combination thereof.

    SAFEGUARDS:

    The system of records is stored in a building with doors that are locked during and after business hours. Visitors to the facility must register and must be accompanied by Federal personnel at all times. Only those that have the need to know, to carry out the official duties of their job, have access to the information. Paper records are maintained in secured file cabinets in areas that are accessible only to authorized personnel of the Data Collection Agent. Electronic records containing Privacy Act information are protected by a user identification/password. The user identification/password is issued to individuals by authorized personnel.

    NMFS, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, contractors, to whom access to this information is granted in accordance with this system of records routine uses provision, are instructed on the confidential nature of this information.

    All electronic information disseminated by NOAA adheres to the standards set out in Appendix III, Security of Automated Information Resources, OMB Circular A-130; the Computer Security Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3 and 278g-4); and the Government Information Security Reform Act, Public Law 106-398; and follows NIST SP 800-18, Guide for Developing Security Plans for Federal Information Systems; NIST SP 800-26, Security Self-Assessment Guide for Information Technology Systems; and NIST SP 800-53, Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems.

    RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

    All records are retained and disposed of in accordance with National Archives and Records Administration regulations (36 CFR Subchapter XII, Chapter B—Records Management); Departmental directives and comprehensive records schedules; NOAA Administrative Order 205-01; and the NMFS Records Disposition Schedule, Chapter 1500.

    SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

    Northwest Fisheries Science Center Economics Program Manager, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. East, Seattle, WA 98112.

    NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:

    Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquires to the national Privacy Act Officer: Privacy Act Officer, NOAA, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 10641, Silver Spring MD 20910. Written requests must be signed by the requesting individual. Requestor must make the request in writing and provide his/her name, address, and date of the request and record sought. All such requests must comply with the inquiry provisions of the Department's Privacy Act rules which appear at 15 CFR part 4, subpart B, Appendix A.

    RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    Requests for access to records maintained in this system of records should be addressed to the same address given in the Notification Procedure section above.

    CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

    The Department's rules for access, for contesting contents, and appealing initial determinations by the individual concerned are provided for in 15 CFR part 4, subpart B, Appendix A.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    Information contained in this system will be collected from individuals participating in the EDC data collections.

    EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:

    None.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Michael J. Toland, Department of Commerce, Acting Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19452 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [Docket No. 150720626-5626-01] Privacy Act of 1974; Amended System of Records AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Proposed Amendment to Privacy Act System of Records: COMMERCE/NOAA-19, Permits and Registrations for United States Federally Regulated Fisheries.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the Department of Commerce's (Department) proposal to amend the system of records entitled “COMMERCE/NOAA-19, Permits and Registrations for United States Federally Regulated Fisheries,” under the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is revising its system of records for permits and non-permit registrations for use with a variety of fisheries management programs. Information will be collected from individuals under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the American Fisheries Act, the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, the Atlantic Tunas Convention Authorization Act, the Northern Pacific Halibut Act, the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act, international fisheries regulations regarding U.S. Vessels Fishing in Colombian Treaty Waters, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. This revised record system is necessary to identify participants in the fisheries and to evaluate the qualifications of the applicants. We invite public comment on the amended system announced in this publication.

    DATES:

    To be considered, written comments must be submitted on or before September 8, 2015. Unless comments are received, the new system of records will become effective as proposed on the date of publication of a subsequent notice in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be mailed to Sarah Brabson, NOAA Office of the Chief Information Officer, Room 9856, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah Brabson, NOAA Office of the Chief Information Officer, Room 9856, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS is revising its system of records for permit and non-permit registrations for use with a variety of fisheries management programs. NMFS requires the use of permits or registrations by participants in U.S. Federally regulated fisheries. Information collections would be requested from individuals under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the American Fisheries Act, the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, the Atlantic Tunas Convention Authorization Act, the Northern Pacific Halibut Act, the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act, International Fisheries Regulations regarding U.S. Vessels Fishing in Colombian Treaty Waters, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Fur Seal Act. The collection of information is necessary to identify participants in these fisheries and to evaluate the qualifications of the applicants. NMFS would collect information from individuals in order to issue, renew, or transfer fishing permits, or to make non-permit registrations. NMFS may use lists of permit holders, or registrants as sample frames for the conduct of surveys to collect information necessary to the administration of the statutes cited above. The authority for the mandatory collection of the Tax Identification Number (Employer Identification Number or Social Security Number) is 31 U.S.C. 7701.

    COMMERCE/NOAA-19 SYSTEM NAME:

    COMMERCE/NOAA-19, Permits and Registrations for United States Federally Regulated Fisheries.

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

    None.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    a. NMFS Greater Atlantic Region, 55 Great Republic Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930 (includes Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Tuna Dealer permits).

    b. NMFS Southeast Region, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg FL 33701 (includes HMS International Trade Permit, Shark and swordfish vessel permits, shark and swordfish dealer permits).

    c. NMFS West Coast Region, Sustainable Fisheries Division, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Bldg. #1, Seattle, WA 98115.

    d. NMFS West Coast Region, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.

    e. NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037 (Pacific Highly Migratory Species database only).

    f. NMFS Office of the Chief Information Officer, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (National Permits System).

    g. NMFS Pacific Islands Region, 1845 Wasp Boulevard, Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

    h. NMFS Alaska Region, 709 West Ninth Street, Juneau, AK 99801.

    i. NMFS Office of Science and Technology, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (National Saltwater Angler Registry).

    j. NMFS Office of International Affairs, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (High Seas Fishing Compliance Act and Antarctic Marine Living Resources harvesting and dealer permit data).

    k. NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 3209 Frederic St., Pascagoula, MS 39567 (Antarctic Marine Living Resources preauthorization certification data).

    l. NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (Atlantic HMS Tuna vessel permits, HMS Angling Permit, HMS Charter/headboat permits database).

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    Owners or holders of a permit or registration as recognized by NMFS, owner agents, vessel owners, and/or operators. Individuals, who apply for any permit, permit exception, permit exemption or regulation exemption, registration, dedicated access privilege or fishing quota share either initially, annually, or by transfer. Applicants seeking permission to fish in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited in order to conduct experimental fishing. Owners of processing facilities and/or fish dealers. Permit qualifiers (persons whose incomes are used for permit qualification). Allocation assignees under a Southeast Region individual fishing quota.

    CATAGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    This information is collected and/or maintained by all regions and divisions: For applicants and related entities referred to in regions/divisions: name, address, business telephone number and date of birth; Tax Identification Number (TIN), Employer Identification Number (EIN) or Social Security Number (SSN), required for all permits, under the authority 31 U.S.C. 7701. For purposes of administering the various NMFS fisheries permit and registration programs, a person shall be considered to be doing business with a Federal agency including, but not limited to, if the person is an applicant for, or recipient of, a Federal license, permit, right-of-way, grant, or benefit payment administered by the agency, or insurance administered by the agency pursuant to subsection (c)(2)(B) of 31 U.S.C 7701.

    Additional information is collected and/or maintained by individual regions and divisions:

    Greater Atlantic Region

    For transferable permits: Current permit number, permit status information, type of application, name and type of applicant, cellular telephone number and/or fax number, hair and eye color, height and weight, ID-sized photograph, medical records for resolution of permit dispute, enforcement actions, court and legal documents, and permit sanction notice files by NOAA General Counsel, checking account numbers, cancelled checks, tax returns, internal permit number specific to each limited entry permit, baseline specifications on limited entry permit, country, captain's license, State and Federal Dealer Numbers (if applicable), name of incorporation, state and date of incorporation of business and articles of incorporation, coast on which dealer does business, processing sector, facilities where fish received, vessel landing receipts and records, dealer purchase receipts, bills of sale, type of vessel registration, NMFS unique vessel ID, year vessel built, hailing port, hailing port state, principal port, principal state, vessel operations type (catching and/or processing: for at-sea processing permit), fish hold capacity, passenger capacity, VMS status, crew size, fishery type, fishery management plan and category, maximum days at sea, quota allocation and shares, regional fishery management organization, species or species code, type of gear, gear code and rank, buoy and trap/pot color, number of tags assigned to vessel, number of traps, and dredge size and number.

    Southeast Region

    Fee payment information, applicant cellular telephone number and/or fax number, email address, Web site, gender, hair and eye color, height and weight, ID-sized photograph, corporation name, Dunn and Bradstreet Corporation Number, state and date of incorporation; for all entities with a business relationship (officer, owner or shareholder) to a wreckfish certificate holder, or with a business relationship (officer, owner or shareholder) to a vessel owner or vessel lessee, position held in the business, percent ownership of the business, and citizenship status; NMFS internal identification number, county, country, marriage certificate, divorce decree, death certificate, trust documents, probated will, enforcement actions, court and legal documents, and permit sanction notices files by General Counsel, name of vessel permit applicant if not owner, and relationship to owner, type of vessel ownership, captain's license, original permit, permit payment information, name of permit transferor and number of permit before transfer, permit and vessel sale price (for permit transfers), date of permit transfer signature, notarized, sale and lease agreement with lease start and end dates if applicable, income or license qualifier for certain fisheries, Income Qualification Affidavit for income qualified fisheries, U.S. importer number, State and Federal dealer numbers (if applicable), plant name and operator, hull identification number, hailing port and hailing port state, year vessel built, location where vessel built, vessel function, vessel characteristics (length, breadth, external markings, hull/or superstructure color), gross and net tonnage, type of construction, fuel capacity and type, horsepower (engine, pump), type of product storage, fish hold capacity, live well capacity, radio call sign, vessel communication types and numbers, crew size, passenger capacity, fishery type, quota shares, vessel landing receipts and records, bills of sale, processing facility where fish are received, gear type, species/gear endorsements, buoy/trap color code, number of traps, trap tag number series, trap dimensions, trap mesh size, designated fishing zone, aquaculture reports: site description, material deposited and harvested, value of material, Highly Migratory Species workshop certificate, informational telephone calls recorded with member of public's knowledge, (or customer service evaluation and constituent statement records); U.S. Citizenship or permanent resident alien status, facility name, address, telephone information (for dealer permits), and permit or license numbers for other Federal or state permit/licenses issued.

    Atlantic Highly Migratory Species

    Current permit number, permit status information, type of application, name and type of applicant, business email address, cellular telephone and/or fax number, Web site, corporation name and state and date of incorporation, Dunn and Bradstreet Corporation Number, percent/rank of ownership interest, lease start/end date, income or license qualifier for certain fisheries, United States Coast Guard (USCG) Certificate of Documentation number or state vessel registration number, U.S. Importer Number (dealers), State and Federal Dealer Numbers (if applicable), processing facility where fish are received, name of vessel, type of vessel registration, hull identification number, vessel characteristics (length, breadth, external markings, hull/or superstructure color), gross and net tonnage, type of construction, fuel capacity and type, horsepower (engine, pump), type of product storage, passenger capacity; crew size, hailing port, hailing port state, principal port, principal port state, fish hold capacity, year vessel built, fishery type, species or species code, type of fishing gear, gear code; vessel monitoring system (VMS) activation certification, vessel name, and vessel function.

    West Coast Region

    Northwest Permits: NMFS internal identification number, permit/license number, applicant or new permit/license owner name, (current and new) permit/license or vessel owner name, email address, name of authorized representative and title, permit action requested, midseason sablefish tier landed amount, application fee payment information (check/money order date, check/money order number, bank account number or credit card last 4 digits, check amount), copies of checks, divorce decree, marriage certificate, death certificate, probated will, trust documents, medical records of permit owners seeking exemption from certain permit requirements, proof of citizenship, enforcement actions and settlement agreements, power of attorney documents, affidavits, court and legal documents, articles of incorporation, state and date of incorporation, permit sanction notices, period of permit lease, permit sale/lease price, sales/lease agreement. vessel name and registration number, vessel length overall, location of where vessel built, documentation of loss or destruction of vessel, vessel registration documentation (USCG or state), names of entities/individuals having a share(s) in a corporate/business entity, percent of ownership interest in corporate/business entity, Small Business Act designation/certification, landing/delivery receipts/data and records, catch/delivery/processing history bill of lading, sales and contract agreements, amount of quota share for IFQ species associated with QS permit, mothership/catcher vessel endorsement and catch history identification number and amount of whiting catch history assignment, name of first receiver and landing facility contact, first receiver catch monitor plan, state scale inspection documentation, landing facility owner name, physical address of first receiving facility, mothership catcher vessels designation of whether it operate in coop or non-coop fishery and obligation to mothership permit (number), catcher processor designation of whether it will operate as mothership, mothership designation of whether it will operate solely as mothership, cooperative name, cooperative manager name, mutual exception agreements, mothership processing withdrawal certification, cooperative/membership agreement (list of members, permits, vessels, cooperative requirements, amendments), list of vessels participating in cooperative, list of permits and their obligation to a mothership permit. Southwest Permits: Permit status information, type of application, name of applicant and relationship to owner or owner manager if not owner or operator, and names of other individuals on application (vessel owner(s), owner's agent, dealer, corporation members), and position in company if applicable, corporation name, Dunn and Bradstreet Corporation Number, state and date of incorporation and articles of incorporation (if applicable), cellular telephone number and/or fax number, business email address, USCG Certificate of Documentation number or state vessel registration number, country, other federal, state and commercial licenses held by operator, name of permit transferor and number of permit before transfer, type of vessel (commercial fishing, charter), vessel photograph, hull identification number, hailing port, hailing port state, principal port, principal port state, year vessel built, where vessel built, maximum vessel speed, fish hold capacity, processing equipment, passenger capacity, crew size, international radio call sign, Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) status, dolphin safety gear on board, previous vessel flag, previous vessel name and effective dates, species/gear endorsements, fishery type, type of fishing gear, gear code, fishing status (active or inactive), intent to make intentional purse seine sets on marine mammals, date, location, and provider of most recent tuna purse seine marine mammal skipper workshop.

    Pacific Islands Region

    Current permit number, permit status information, type of application, name of applicant and of other individuals on application (vessel owner(s), owner's agent, dealer, corporation members), and position in company if applicable, corporation name, state and date of incorporation, cellular telephone number and/or fax number, email address, photograph identification, verification of citizenship or nationality, owner of checking account from which application processing fees made, date and number of check, enforcement actions, court and legal documents, and permit sanction notices filed by General Counsel, name of permit transferor and transferee and number of permit before transfer, letters of authorization or power of attorney, compliance with protected species workshop, USCG Certificate of Documentation number or state vessel registration number, vessel name, permits registered to vessel, international radio call sign, year vessel built, location where vessel built, endorsements, vessel markings and photograph, vessel refrigeration and capacity, fish hold capacity, communication types and addresses, fishery type, percent of ownership interest, ownership and catch history as basis for permit qualification or renewal vessel landing receipts and records, dealer purchase receipts, and bills of sale.

    Alaska Region

    Current permit number, permit status information, type of application, name of applicant and of other individuals on application (vessel owner(s), owner's agent, dealer, corporation members), and position in company if applicable, corporation name, state and date of incorporation and articles of incorporation (if applicable), cellular and/or fax telephone number, business email address, country, citizenship, NMFS internal identification number, USCG Certificate of Documentation number or state vessel registration number, vessel name, reference names, owner beneficiary, death certificate, marriage certificate, divorce decree, trust documents, probated will, medical information for emergency transfer of certain permits only, enforcement actions, court and legal documents, and permit sanction notices files by General Counsel, bank account number, canceled checks, tax returns, name of Alaska Native tribe, community of residence, fishery community organization, community governing body contact person, nonprofit name, community represented by nonprofit, cooperative representative, percent of ownership interest, permit restrictions, quota type, names of other quota holders if affiliated with any, cooperative member receiving quota against cap, names and relationship of permit transferor and transferee, transfer eligibility certificate, sector and region before transfer, reason for transfer, broker's name and fee, lien information (if applicable), quota transfer costs, permit financing source, permit fee, sale/lease agreement, period of lease, agreement to return shares (if applicable), and documentation of military service for certain quota leases; for crab rationalization: Affidavit that right of first refusal contracts were signed, number of units and pounds of fish transferred, applicable dealer license numbers, processing plant name and identification, operation type and operator, type of vessel registration, State of Alaska registration number, NMFS vessel identification number, hull identification number, hailing port and hailing port state, vessel breadth, gross tonnage, fuel capacity and horsepower, numbers of existing permits if applicable to current application, documentation of loss or destruction of a vessel, list of vessels in a vessel cooperative, vessel operations type in terms of catching and/or processing, species/gear endorsements for fisheries requiring vessel monitoring systems, fishery type, species or species code, fishery management plan, days at sea allocations, quota shares, type of fishing gear, gear code, vessel landing receipts and records, bills of sale, delivery receipts, dealer purchase receipts, and processing sector and facility where fish are received.

    High Seas Fishing Compliance Act

    Name of applicant and of other individuals on application (vessel owner(s), vessel operator(s), owner's agent, dealer, corporation members), citizenship, cellular telephone and/or fax number, email, positions of individuals in company if applicable, corporation name, State and date of incorporation (if applicable), current permit number, permit status information, type of application, internal identification number, percent/rank of ownership interest, hull identification number, vessel photograph, type of vessel registration, USCG Certificate of Documentation number or state vessel registration number, vessel name, year vessel built, where vessel built, fish hold capacity, hailing port, hailing port state, crew size, international radio call sign, previous vessel flag, previous vessel name, fishery type, fishery management plan, regional fishery management organization, type of vessel, vessel code, and vessel refrigeration type.

    Antarctic Marine Living Resources

    Current permit number, permit status information, type of application, name of applicant and of other individuals on application (vessel owner(s), owner's agent, dealer, corporation members), and position in company if applicable, corporation name, state and date of incorporation and articles of incorporation (if applicable), nationality, cellular telephone and/or fax number, type of vessel (commercial fishing, charter), where vessel built, year vessel built, fish hold capacity, USCG Certificate of Documentation number or state vessel registration number, vessel name, International Maritime Organization number (if issued), vessel communication types and serial numbers, details of tamper-proof VMS elements, ice classification, processing equipment, international radio call sign, foreign vessel flag, previous vessel flag, previous vessel name, permit number of supporting foreign vessel, crew size, species code, type of fishing gear, information on the known and anticipated impacts of bottom trawling gear on vulnerable marine ecosystems, species and amount to be imported, and the products to be derived from an anticipated catch of krill.

    National Saltwater Angler Registry Program

    Email address, business telephone number, designation as owner-operator or for-hire vessel, vessel name and registration/documentation number, and a statement of the region(s) in which the registrant fishes.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. (Magnuson-Stevens Act); High Seas Fishing Compliance Act of 1995, 16 U.S.C. 5501 et seq.; International Fisheries Regulations: Vessels of the United States Fishing in Colombian Treaty Waters, 50 CFR 300.120; the American Fisheries Act, Title II, Public Law 105-277; the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act of 1993, 16 U.S.C. 5101-5108, as amended 1996; the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, 16 U.S.C. 951-961; the Atlantic Tunas Convention Authorization Act, 16 U.S.C., Chapter 16A; the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982, 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq. (Halibut Act); the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act of 1984, 16 U.S.C. 2431-2444; the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act, 16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. (WCPFCIA); the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1361; and Taxpayer Identifying Number, 31 U.S.C. 7701.

    PURPOSES:

    This information will allow NMFS to identify owners and holders of permits and non-permit registrations; identify vessel owners and operators; evaluate requests by applicants and current participants, or agency actions, related to the issuance, renewal, transfer, revocation, suspension or modification of a permit or registration.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    1. In the event that a system of records maintained by the Department to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law or contract, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute or contract, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, or the necessity to protect an interest of the Department, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, State, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute or contract, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, or protecting the interest of the Department.

    2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, in the course of presenting evidence to a court, magistrate or administrative tribunal, including disclosures to opposing counsel representing the requester and/or subject of the records in the course of settlement negotiations.

    3. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to a Member of Congress submitting a request involving an individual when the individual has requested assistance from the Member with respect to the subject matter of the record.

    4. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Department of Justice in connection with determining whether disclosure thereof is required by the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

    5. A record in this system will be disclosed to the Department of Treasury for the purpose of reporting and recouping delinquent debts owed the United States pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.

    6. A record in this system may be disclosed to the Department of Homeland Security for the purposes of determining the admissibility of certain seafood imports into the United States.

    7. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a contractor of the Department having need for the information in the performance of the contract, but not operating a system of records within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).

    8. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to approved persons at the state or interstate level within the applicable Marine Fisheries Commission for the purpose of co-managing a fishery or for making determinations about eligibility for permits when state data are all or part of the basis for the permits.

    9. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to the applicable Fishery Management Council (Council) staff and contractors tasked with the development of analyses to support Council decisions about Fishery Management Programs.

    10. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to the applicable NMFS Observer Program for purposes of identifying current permit owners and vessels and making a random assignment of observers to vessels in a given fishing season.

    11. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to the applicable regional or international fisheries management body for the purposes of identifying current permit owners and vessels pursuant to applicable statutes or regulations and/or conservation and management measures adopted by a regional or international fisheries management body, such as: The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, International Pacific Halibut Commission, and International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.

    12. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) It is suspected or determined that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identify theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES:

    Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) may be made from this system to “consumer reporting agencies” as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) and the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)).

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE:

    Computerized database; CDs; back-up files stored on tape, paper records stored in file folders in locked metal cabinets and/or locked rooms.

    RETRIEVABILITY:

    Records are organized and retrieved by NMFS internal identification number, name of entity, permit number, vessel name or identification number, or processing plant name. Records can be accessed by any file element or any combination thereof.

    SAFEGUARDS:

    The system of records is stored in a building with doors that are locked during and after business hours. Visitors to the facility must register with security guards and must be accompanied by Federal personnel at all times. Records are stored in a locked room and/or a locked file cabinet. Electronic records containing Privacy Act information are protected by a user identification/password. The user identification/password is issued to individuals as authorized by authorized personnel.

    All electronic information disseminated by NOAA adheres to the standards set out in Appendix III, Security of Automated Information Resources, OMB Circular A-130; the Computer Security Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3 and 278g-4); and the Government Information Security Reform Act, Public Law 106-398; and follows NIST SP 800-18, Guide for Developing Security Plans for Federal Information Systems; NIST SP 800-26, Security Self-Assessment Guide for Information Technology Systems; and NIST SP 800-53, Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems.

    RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

    All records are retained and disposed of in accordance with National Archive and Records Administration regulations (36 CFR Chapter XII, Subchapter B—Records Management); Departmental directives and comprehensive records schedules; NOAA Administrative Order 205-01; and the NMFS Records Disposition Schedule, Chapter 1500.

    SYSTEM MANGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

    For records at location a.: Division Chief, Fisheries Statistics Office, NMFS Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS Greater Atlantic Region, 55 Great Republic Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930.

    For records at location b.: Assistant Regional Administrator for Operations, Management, and Information Services, NMFS Southeast Region, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

    For records at location c.: Permit Team Leader, NMFS West Coast Region, Sustainable Fisheries Division, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Bldg. #1, Seattle, WA 98115.

    For records at location d.: Permits Specialist, NMFS West Coast Region, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.

    For records at location e.: Supervisory IT Specialist, NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037 (Pacific Highly Migratory Species database only).

    For records at location f.: Supervisory IT Specialist, NMFS Office of the Chief Information Officer, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (National Permits System).

    For records at location g.: Information/Permit Specialist, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS Pacific Islands Region, 1845 Wasp Boulevard, Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

    For records at location h.: Information/Permit Specialist, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS Alaska Region, 709 West Ninth Street, Juneau, AK 99801.

    For records at location i.: Chief, Fisheries Statistics Division, NMFS Office of Science and Technology, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (National Saltwater Angler Registry).

    For records at location j.: Fishery Management Specialist, Office of International Affairs, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (High Seas Fishing Compliance Act and Antarctic Marine Living Resources harvesting and dealer permit data).

    For records at location k.: Fishery Biologist, NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 3209 Frederic St., Pascagoula, MS 39567 (Antarctic Marine Living Resources preauthorization certification data).

    For records at location l.: Division Chief, Highly Migratory Species Management (F/SF1), NMFS 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13458, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (Atlantic HMS Tuna vessel permits, HMS Angling Permit, HMS Charter/headboat permits database).

    NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:

    Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the national or regional Privacy Act Officer:

    Privacy Act Officer, NOAA, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 10641, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    Privacy Act Officer, NMFS Greater Atlantic Region, 55 Great Republic Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930.

    Privacy Act Officer, NMFS Southeast Region, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

    Privacy Act Officer, NMFS West Coast Region, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Bldg. #1, Seattle, WA 98115.

    Privacy Act Officer, NMFS West Coast Region, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.

    Privacy Act Officer, NMFS Pacific Islands Region, 1845 Wasp Boulevard, Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

    Privacy Act Officer, NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, Alaska 99802, or delivered to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, Alaska 99801.

    Written requests must be signed by the requesting individual. Requestor must make the request in writing and provide his/her name, address, and date of the request and record sought. All such requests must comply with the inquiry provisions of the Department's Privacy Act rules which appear at 15 CFR part 4, Appendix A.

    RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    Requests for access to records maintained in this system of records should be addressed to the same address given in the Notification section above. Note: Complete records for jointly held permits are made accessible to each holder upon his/her request.

    The Department's rules for access, for contesting contents, and appealing initial determinations by the individual concerned are provided for in 15 CFR part 4, Appendix A.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    Information in this system will be collected from individuals applying for a permit or registration or from an entity supplying related documentation regarding an application, permit, or registration.

    EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:

    None.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Michael J. Toland, Department of Commerce, Acting Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19451 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-19-2015] Authorization of Production Activity; Foreign-Trade Subzone 167B; Polaris Industries, Inc. (Spark-Ignition Internal Combustion Engines); Osceola, Wisconsin

    On March 30, 2015, Polaris Industries, Inc., operator of Subzone 167B, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility located in Osceola, Wisconsin.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (80 FR 19276, 4-10-2015). The FTZ Board has determined that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification is authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19485 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-839] Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India: Final Results of Expedited Second Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on carbazole violet pigment 23 (CVP-23) from India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jacqueline Arrowsmith, Office VII, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On December 29, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the CVD order on CVP-23 from India.1 On April 1, 2015, the Department published a notice of initiation of the second sunset review of the CVD Order on CVP-23 from India pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2 On April 13, 2015, Nation Ford Chemical Company (NFC) and Sun Chemical Corporation (Sun) filed a notice of intent to participate in the review.3 NFC and Sun claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as domestic producers of the domestic like product.4

    1See: Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 77995 (December 29, 2004) (CVD Order).

    2See Initiation of Five Year (“Sunset”) Review, 79 FR 65186 (April 1, 2015).

    3See Letter from NFC and Sun to the Department, “Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India/Notice of Intent to Participate in Second Sunset Review of Countervailing Duty Order,” dated April 13, 2015.

    4 In its response, NFC and Sun claim to be domestic producers of CVP-23. Id. at 2.

    The Department received an adequate substantive response from the domestic industry within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department did not receive a response from the Government of India or any respondent interested party to the proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(l)(ii)(B)(2) and (C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited review of this CVD Order on CVP-23 from India.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this CVD Order is CVP-23. Imports of merchandise included within the scope of this order are currently classifiable under subheading 3204.17.9040 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. The Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice, provides a full description of the scope of the order.5

    5See Department Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Expedited Second Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The issues discussed include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy rate likely to prevail if the CVD Order were revoked.

    Final Results of Sunset Review

    Pursuant to sections 752(b)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the CVD Order on CVP-23 from India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a net countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below:

    Manufacturers
  • exporters/
  • producers
  • Net countervailable subsidy
  • (percent)
  • Alpanil Industries Ltd 14.93 Pidilite Industries Ltd 15.24 AMI Pigments Pvt. Ltd 33.61 All Others 18.66
    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as the only 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. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    The Department is issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 30, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19354 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-520-803] Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the United Arab Emirates: Negative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On May 7, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the negative preliminary determination of circumvention of the antidumping duty order 1 on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from the United Arab Emirates (UAE).2 We continue to determine that imports of PET film produced by JBF Bahrain S.P.C. (JBF Bahrain) in the Kingdom of Bahrain (Bahrain) are not circumventing the Order, pursuant to section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.225(h).

    1See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Brazil, the People's Republic of China and the United Arab Emirates: Antidumping Duty Orders and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value for the United Arab Emirates, 73 FR 66595 (November 10, 2008) (Order).

    2See Preliminary Negative Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Order on Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the United Arab Emirates, 80 FR 26229 (May 7, 2015) (Preliminary Determination), and the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    DATES:

    Effective date: August 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Huston, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4261.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On July 29, 2014, the Department initiated an anti-circumvention inquiry of the antidumping duty order on PET film from the UAE, pursuant to section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.225(h).3 On May 7, 2015, the Department published the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. The Department invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. On June 8, 2015, Polyplex USA LLC and FLEX USA, Inc. (Domestic Parties) and JBF Bahrain submitted timely case briefs. On June 10, 2015, the Department sent a letter to Domestic Parties, noting certain deficiencies in Domestic Parties' submission, and requesting that Domestic Parties resubmit their case brief. Domestic Parties timely resubmitted their case brief on June 11, 2015. On June 15, 2015, Domestic Parties, and DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film Inc., and SKC, Inc. (collectively, Petitioners), filed timely rebuttal briefs. On June 18, 2015, JBF Bahrain submitted a timely rebuttal brief. On July 9, 2015, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, the Department held a public hearing, following a timely request by Domestic Parties.

    3See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip the United Arab Emirates: Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry on Antidumping Duty Order, 79 FR 44006 (July 29, 2014).

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, whether extruded or co-extruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer more than 0.00001 inches thick. Also excluded is roller transport cleaning film which has at least one of its surfaces modified by application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR latex. Tracing and drafting film is also excluded. Polyethylene terephthalate film is classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    Scope of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiry

    This anti-circumvention inquiry covers PET film produced in Bahrain by JBF Bahrain from inputs (PET chips and silica chips) manufactured in the UAE, and that is subsequently exported from Bahrain to the United States.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the comments by parties in this proceeding are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.4 A list of the issues which the parties raised, to which the Department has responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix 1. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit in room B8024 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    4See Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the United Arab Emirates: Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty Order” (Issues and Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Negative Final Determination of Circumvention

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department preliminarily determined that the process of completion or assembly of PET film produced by JBF Bahrain in Bahrain is not minor or insignificant, within the meaning of section 781(b)(2) of the Act. After reviewing comments from interested parties, we continue to find that the process of completion or assembly is not minor or insignificant. Therefore the Department determines that PET film produced by JBF Bahrain, exported from Bahrain to the United States, is not circumventing the Order.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the 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.

    This negative final circumvention determination is published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225.

    Dated: July 31, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix 1 List of Issues Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum Comment 1: Whether JBF Bahrain has taken deliberate action to circumvent the Order Comment 2: Whether JBF Bahrain's process of completion or assembly is substantial or significant under Section 781(b)(2) of the Act Comment 3: Whether the value of the merchandise produced in the order country is a significant portion of the total value of the merchandise exported to the United States under Section 781(b)(1)(D) of the Act Comment 4: Completion by JBF Bahrain from parts or components produced in the UAE under Section 781(b)(1)(B) of the Act Comment 5: Whether record evidence shows that Domestic Parties are interested parties
    [FR Doc. 2015-19483 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-985] Xanthan Gum From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The period of review (“POR”) is July 19, 2013, through June 30, 2014.1 The Department initiated this review with respect to eight companies, two of which have been collapsed with a mandatory respondent. The two collapsed mandatory respondents are: Deosen Biochemical Ltd./Deosen Biochemical (Ordos) Ltd. (“Deosen”) and Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co., Ltd. (aka Inner Mongolia Fufeng Biotechnologies Co., Ltd.)/Shandong Fufeng Fermentation Co., Ltd./Xinjiang Fufeng Biotechnologies Co., Ltd. (“Fufeng”). The Department preliminarily finds that the mandatory respondent Deosen sold subject merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value (“NV”) during the POR, but that Fufeng did not. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    1 The POR for this administrative review begins on July 19, 2013, the date the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) published its final determination of threat of material injury in the underlying investigation and the date from which merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from the PRC remains suspended from liquidation pursuant to the underlying investigation. The ITC's finding was not accompanied by a finding that injury would have resulted but for the imposition of suspension of liquidation. See Xanthan Gum From Austria and China, 78 FR 43226 (July 19, 2013). Accordingly, merchandise subject to the investigation remains suspended from liquidation beginning on July 19, 2013, the date the ITC published its final determination, see Xanthan Gum From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 78 FR 43143, 43144 (July 19, 2013), and this date serves as the first day of the POR for this administrative review.

    DATES:

    Effective date: August 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brandon Farlander or Erin Kearney, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0182 or (202) 482-0167, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order

    The scope of the order covers dry xanthan gum, whether or not coated or blended with other products. Further, xanthan gum is included in this order regardless of physical form, including, but not limited to, solutions, slurries, dry powders of any particle size, or unground fiber. Merchandise covered by the scope of this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheading 3913.90.20. This tariff classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope is dispositive.2

    2 For a complete description of the Scope of the Order, see “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Xanthan Gum from the People's Republic of China,” (“Preliminary Decision Memorandum”), dated concurrently with this notice.

    Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

    Based on an analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) information, and questionnaire responses provided by A.H.A. International Co., Ltd. (“AHA”) and Deosen, the Department preliminarily determines that AHA did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. For additional information regarding this determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Consistent with an announced refinement to its assessment practice in non-market economy (“NME”) cases, the Department is not rescinding this review for AHA, but intends to complete the review and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.3

    3See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694, 65694-95 (October 24, 2011) and the “Assessment Rates” section, below.

    Preliminary Affiliation and Single Entity Determination

    Based on record evidence, the Department preliminarily finds that Deosen Biochemical Ltd. and Deosen Biochemical (Ordos) Ltd. are affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(G) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”) and should be treated as a single entity for AD purposes pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f). Furthermore, based on record evidence, the Department preliminarily finds that Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co., Ltd. (aka Inner Mongolia Fufeng Biotechnologies Co., Ltd.), Shandong Fufeng Fermentation Co. Ltd., and Xinjiang Fufeng Biotechnologies Co., Ltd. are affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act and should be treated as a single entity for AD purposes pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f). For additional information, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Separate Rates

    The Department preliminarily determines that information placed on the record by the mandatory respondents Deosen and Fufeng, as well as by the separate rate applicants CP Kelco (Shandong) Biological Company Limited and Shanghai Smart Chemicals Co. Ltd., demonstrates that these companies are entitled to separate rate status. Hebei Xinhe Biochemical Co. Ltd., which did not claim that it made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, failed to submit a separate rate application or separate rate certification. Therefore, this company is not eligible for separate rate status.4 Accordingly, the Department preliminarily finds that the PRC-wide entity includes this company. For additional information, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    4See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR 51548, 51549 (August 29, 2014) (“All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification . . .”).

    PRC-Wide Entity

    The Department's change in policy regarding conditional review of the PRC-wide entity applies to this administrative review.5 Under this policy, the PRC-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or the Department self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the PRC-wide entity in this review, the entity is not under review and the entity's rate is not subject to change (i.e., 154.07 percent).6

    5See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013).

    6See Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2012-2013, 80 FR 13332 (March 13, 2015), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Rate for Separate-Rate Companies Not Individually Examined

    The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to respondents not selected for individual examination when the Department limits its examination of companies subject to the administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents not individually examined in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act articulates a preference for not calculating an all-others rate using rates which are zero, de minimis or based entirely on facts available. Accordingly, the Department's usual practice has been to determine the dumping margin for companies not individually examined by averaging the weighted-average dumping margins for the individually examined respondents, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available.7 Consistent with this practice, because we preliminarily determine that the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Fufeng is zero, the Department assigned to the companies not individually examined, but which demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate, a margin equal to the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Deosen.

    7See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews in Part, 73 FR 52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 16.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act. The Department calculated export prices and constructed export prices in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Given that the PRC is a NME country, within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, the Department calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

    For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary results of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.8 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be found at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    8 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is provided in the Appendix to this notice.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:

    Exporter Weighted-
  • average dumping margin
  • (percent)
  • Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co., Ltd. (aka Inner Mongolia Fufeng Biotechnologies Co., Ltd.)/Shandong Fufeng Fermentation Co., Ltd./Xinjiang Fufeng Biotechnologies Co., Ltd 0.00 Deosen Biochemical Ltd./Deosen Biochemical (Ordos) Ltd 5.14 CP Kelco (Shandong) Biological Company Limited 5.14 Shanghai Smart Chemicals Co. Ltd 5.14
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department intends to disclose to parties the calculations performed for these preliminary results of review not later than ten days after the date of the public announcement of, or, if there is no public announcement, within five days after the date of publication of, the preliminary results of review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.9 Rebuttal briefs may be filed no later than five days after case briefs are due and may respond only to arguments raised in the case briefs.10 A table of contents, list of authorities used, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department.11 The summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.

    9See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).

    10See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    11See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2), (d)(2).

    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.12 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral argument presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a date and time to be determined.13 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    12See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    13See 19 CFR 351.310(d).

    All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using ACCESS.14 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time (“ET”) on the due date. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with the APO/Dockets Unit in Room 18022 and stamped with the date and time of receipt by 5 p.m. ET on the due date.15

    14See generally 19 CFR 351.303.

    15See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    Unless otherwise extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.16 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. For each individually examined respondent in this review whose weighted-average dumping margin in the final results of review is above de minimis (i.e., greater than or equal to 0.5 percent), the Department intends to calculate importer- (or customer) specific assessment rates, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).17 Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, the Department intends to calculate importer- (or customer) specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to the importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to the importer (or customer).18 Where the Department calculates an importer- (or customer) specific weighted-average dumping margin by dividing the total amount of dumping for reviewed sales to the importer (or customer) by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions, the Department will direct CBP to assess importer- (or customer) specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit rates.19 We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis. Where either the respondent's weighted average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.20

    16See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    17See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (“Final Modification”).

    18See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    19Id.

    20See Final Modification at 8103.

    On October 24, 2011, the Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in NME antidumping duty cases.21 Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by an exporter individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate. Additionally, pursuant to this refinement, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.

    21See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011), for a full discussion of this practice.

    In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price. The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then the cash deposit rate will be zero for that exporter); (2) for previously investigated PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 154.07 percent (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

    Dated: July 31, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Selection of Respondents 5. Preliminary Determination of No Shipments 6. Single Entity Treatment 7. Discussion of the Methodology a. Non-Market Economy Country b. Separate Rate c. Surrogate Country d. Date of Sale e. Comparisons to Normal Value f. U.S. Price g. Normal Value h. Currency Conversion 8. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2015-19482 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-002] Chloropicrin From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On April 1, 2015, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on chloropicrin from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) 1 pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Based on the notice of intent to participate and adequate response filed by the domestic interested parties, and the lack of response from any respondent interested party, the Department conducted an expedited sunset review of the Order pursuant. As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the Order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review”' section of this notice.

    1See Antidumping Duty Order; Chloropicrin from the People's Republic of China, 49 FR 10691 (March 22, 1984) (“Order”).

    DATES:

    Effective date: August 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5193.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On April 1, 2015, the Department initiated a sunset review of the order on chloropicrin from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.2 On April 15, 2015, the Department received a timely notice of intent to participate in the sunset review from Ashta Chemicals, Inc. (“Ashta”), Niklor Chemical Company, Inc. (“Niklor”), and Trinity Manufacturing, Inc. (“Trinity”), domestic interested parties, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). On May 1, 2015, Ashta, Niklor, and Trinity filed a timely substantive response with the Department pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i) . The Department did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited sunset review of the Order.

    2See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Review, 80 FR 17388 (April 1, 2015).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order is chloropicrin, also known as trichloronitromethane. A major use of the product is as a pre-plant soil fumigant (pesticide). Such merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) item number 2904.90.50.05.3 The HTS item number is provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

    3 In 2004, a new HTS category was developed and identified specifically for imports of chloropicrin, i.e., 2904.90.50.05. Previously, the HTS category that included chloropicrin was 2904.90.50.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Chloropicrin from the People's Republic of China” from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (“Decision Memorandum”). The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the Order were to be revoked. Parties may find a complete discussion of all issues raised in the review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Services System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum is available directly on the Web at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Final Results of Sunset Review

    Pursuant to Section 752(c)(3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the Order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at weighted average margins up to 58.00 percent.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as the only 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. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.

    Dated: July 29, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19480 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-475-818] Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta (pasta) from Italy,1 covering the period July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014. The initiation of the instant review 2 covered six companies, and we have partially rescinded the review with respect to two companies, as discussed below.3 Thus, this review covers four companies: The mandatory respondents, La Molisana S.p.A. (La Molisana) and Rummo S.p.A. Molino e Pastificio (the Rummo Group),4 and Pastificio Andalini S.p.A. (Andalini) and Delverde Industrie Alimentari S.p.A. (Delverde), which were not selected for individual examination. We preliminarily determine that La Molisana and the Rummo Group made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 38547 (July 24, 1996).

    2See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR 51548 (August 29, 2014) (Initiation Notice).

    3See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 80 FR 4541 (January 28, 2015) (Partial Rescission).

    4 The Rummo Group consists of Rummo S.p.A., Lenta Lavorazione, Pasta Castiglioni, and Rummo S.p.A. Molino e Pastificio. In this review, we found that the facts have not changed with respect to Rummo and its affiliates and therefore, we followed the same methodology as we did in the most recent completed review (AR 17) by collapsing the affiliated companies as the Rummo Group. See Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of Final Results of 17th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 8604 (February 18, 2015) (AR 17 Final Results).

    DATES:

    Effective date: August 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joy Zhang or George McMahon, 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) 482-1168 or (202) 482-1167, respectively.

    Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta. The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.5

    5 For a full description of the scope of the order, see the “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission: Certain Pasta from Italy; 2013-2014” from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Partial Rescission of the 2013-2014 Administrative Review

    On October 10, 2014, and November 25, 2014, respectively, Dalla Costa Alimentare srl (Dalla Costa) and Pasta Lensi S.r.l. (Pasta Lensi) timely withdrew their requests for an administrative review.6 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1),7 and consistent with our practice,8 we rescinded this review, in part, with respect to Dalla Costa and Pasta Lensi.9

    6See Letter from Dalla Costa to the Department, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Pasta from Italy: Withdrawal of Review Request for Administrative Review of Dalla Costa Alimentare SRL,” dated October 10, 2014; Letter from Pasta Lensi to the Department, “Pasta from Italy: Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review,” dated November 25, 2014.

    7 Under 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review “if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.” The instant review was initiated on August 29, 2014. Therefore, the deadline to withdraw review requests was November 27, 2014. Thus, the Dalla Costa and Pasta Lensi withdrawal requests are timely.

    8See, e.g., Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 49170 (August 20, 2008); see also Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 21781 (May 11, 2009).

    9See Partial Rescission.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Methodology

    The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export price or export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary results, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum dated concurrently with this notice and hereby adopted by this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins10 for the period July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014:

    10 The rate applied to the non-selected companies is a weighted-average percentage margin calculated based on the publicly-ranged U.S. volumes of the two reviewed companies with an affirmative dumping margin, for the period July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014. See Memorandum to the File, titled, “Certain Pasta from Italy: Margin for Respondents Not Selected for Individual Examination,” from Joy Zhang and George McMahon, Case Analysts, through Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, dated concurrently with this notice.

    Producer and/or exporter Weighted-
  • average dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • La Molisana S.p.A. (La Molisana) 12.90 Rummo S.p.A., Lenta Lavorazione, Pasta Castiglioni, and Rummo S.p.A. Molino e Pastificio (collectively, the Rummo Group) 1.18 Pastificio Andalini S.p.A. (Andalini) 8.91 Delverde Industrie Alimentari S.p.A. (Delverde) 8.91
    Assessment Rate

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. If the weighted-average dumping margin for La Molisana or the Rummo Group is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem antidumping duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is not zero or de minimis. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review where applicable.

    In accordance with the Department's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by each respondent for which they did not know that their merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for respondents noted above will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative 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; (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 the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 15.45 percent, the all-others rate established in the antidumping investigation as modified by the section 129 determination.11 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    11See Implementation of the Findings of the WTO Panel in US—Zeroing (EC): Notice of Determinations Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Revocations and Partial Revocations of Certain Antidumping Duty Orders, 72 FR 25261 (May 4, 2007).

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results.12 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.13 Parties who submit comments are requested to submit: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. All briefs must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS.

    12See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    13See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system within 30 days of publication of this notice.14 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, we will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined.15 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing.

    14See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    15See 19 CFR 351.310.

    Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their case briefs, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and increase the subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping duties reimbursed.

    These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 31, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Discussion of Methodology Date of Sale Comparisons to Normal Value Product Comparisons Determination of Comparison Method Results of the Differential Pricing (DP) Analysis Export Price Constructed Export Price Normal Value A. Home Market Viability B. Level of Trade C. Cost of Production D. Calculation of Cost of Production E. Test of Home Market Prices F. Results of the COP Test Margins for Companies Not Selected for Individual Examination Currency Conversion 5. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-19481 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-827] Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On May 29, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received a timely request for a new shipper review (NSR) from Wah Yuen Stationery Co. Ltd. (Wah Yuen), in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(c).1 On June 22, 2015, the Department issued a letter to Wah Yuen requesting that it correct certain deficiencies in its initial request.2 On June 29, 2015, Wah Yuen submitted a timely response to the Department's request.3 The Department has determined that the request for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on cased pencils from the People's Republic of China (PRC) meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation. Thus, we are initiating a new shipper review.

    1See Letter from Wah Yuen, “Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China: Request for New Shipper Review and Notice of Appearance” dated May 29, 2015 (Wah Yuen NSR request).

    2See Letter from Dana S. Mermelstein, regarding the opportunity to correct deficiencies, dated June 22, 2015.

    3See Letter from Wah Yuen, “Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China: Supplemental Request for New Shipper Review” dated June 29, 2015 (Wah Yuen supplemental NSR request).

    DATES:

    Effective date: August 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Kolberg, 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) 482-1785.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The antidumping duty order on cased pencils from the PRC published in the Federal Register on December 28, 1994.4 Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, we received a timely request for a new shipper review of the Order from Wah Yuen.5 Wah Yuen certified that it is both the producer and exporter of the subject merchandise upon which its request was based.6

    4See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 66909 (December 28, 1994) (Order).

    5See Wah Yuen NSR request.

    6Id. at page 1.

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Wah Yuen certified that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (POI).7 In addition, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Wah Yuen certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI, including those respondents not individually examined during the POI.8 As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Wah Yuen also certified that its export activities are not controlled by the government of the PRC.9

    7Id. at Exhibit 2.

    8See Wah Yuen supplemental NSR request at Exhibit 5.

    9See Wah Yuen NSR request at Exhibit 4.

    In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2), Wah Yuen submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) The date on which it first shipped subject merchandise for export to the United States; (2) the volume of its first shipment; and (3) the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.10

    10Id. at Exhibit 1and Wah Yuen supplemental NSR request at Exhibit 6.

    Period of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(B), the period of review (POR) for new shipper reviews initiated in the month immediately following the semiannual anniversary month will be the six-month period immediately preceding the semiannual anniversary month. Therefore, based on the Order, the POR for this NSR is December 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015.

    Initiation of New Shipper Reviews

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), the Department finds that the request from Wah Yuen meets threshold requirements for the initiation of a new shipper review of shipments of cased pencils from the PRC produced and exported by Wah Yuen.11

    11See the memorandum to the file entitled “Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China: Initiation Checklist for Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Wah Yuen Stationery Co., Ltd.” dated concurrently with this notice.

    The Department intends to issue the preliminary results of this new shipper review no later than 180 days from the date of initiation and the final results of the review no later than 90 days after the date the preliminary results are issued.12 It is the Department's usual practice, in cases involving non-market economy countries, to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate provide evidence of de jure and de facto absence of government control over the company's export activities.13 Accordingly, we will issue a questionnaire to Wah Yuen that will include a section requesting information concerning its eligibility for a separate rate. The new shipper review of Wah Yuen will be rescinded if the Department determines that the new shipper applicant has not demonstrated that it is eligible for a separate rate.

    12See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i).

    13See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 79 FR 64749 (October 31, 2014).

    We will instruct CBP to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for the entry of the subject merchandise from Wah Yuen, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Specifically, the bonding privilege will apply only to entries of subject merchandise exported and produced by Wah Yuen, the sales of which are the basis for this NSR request.

    Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in the new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.

    This initiation and notice are published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).

    Dated: July 31, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19484 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE013 Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's (Council) Outreach and Education Advisory Panel (OEAP) will meet.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on August 25, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at CFMC Office, 270 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918, telephone: (787) 766-5926.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The OEAP will meet to discuss the items contained in the following agenda:

    9 a.m.-5 p.m. —Call to Order —Adoption of Agenda —OEAP Chairperson's Report: —OEAP Members —Outreach priorities for 2015-20 —Conduct 2 MREP training sessions in USVI and PR (Eastern coast) —Initiate campaign for Sustainable Seafood Campaign partnering with TNC and UPRSG —Calendars —Produce Fact Sheets/Infographics/small posters on: —New lobster traps —Octopus life cycle —Forage fish —Handling Fresh Tuna fish —Essential Fish Habitats —Status of: —Island-based FMPs —Newsletter —Web site —2016 Calendar —CFMC Brochure —USVI activities —PR Commercial Fisheries Project (PEPCO)—Helena Antoun —MREP-Caribbean: Helena Antoun —Other Business

    The OEAP meeting will convene on August 25, 2015, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m.

    The meeting is open to the public, and will be conducted in English. Fishers and other interested persons are invited to attend and participate with oral or written statements regarding agenda issues.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and/other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918, telephone (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19395 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE065 Marine Mammals; File No. 18903 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that Peter Tyack, Ph.D., Senior Scientist Emeritus, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 86 Water Street, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on several species of cetaceans worldwide.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before September 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page, https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting File No. 18903 from the list of available applications.

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Courtney Smith or Amy Sloan, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The applicant requests a permit to take multiple cetacean species during research activities focused on cetacean behavior, sound production and responses to sound in U.S. waters of the North Atlantic and North Pacific Ocean and international waters near the Mediterranean Sea and the Bahamas. See tables in the permit application for annual numbers of takes by species, stock and activity. Researchers would take animals by harassment during close approaches with vessels for behavioral observations and photo-identification; attachment of suction-cup or implantable tags and marking with zinc oxide; biopsy sampling; and playbacks of natural and simulated sound. Playback takes involve conducting sound playback experiments where subjects whose responses are being measured will be exposed to specific sounds in a carefully controlled manner using a source level <197.4 dB re 1 microPa at 1 m. Incidental harassment of other species in the area may occur during playbacks and vessel surveys. Skin samples would be imported from foreign field sites to the United States for genetic analyses. The requested permit would be valid for five years from issuance.

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

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

    Dated: August 4, 2015. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19446 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Notice of Fee Calculations for Special Use Permits AGENCY:

    Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for public comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with a requirement of Public Law 106-513 (16 U.S.C. 1441(b)), NOAA hereby gives public notice of the methods, formulas and rationale for the calculations it will use in order to assess fees associated with special use permits (SUPs).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NOS-2015-0066, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NOS-2015-0066, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit all written comments to Matt Nichols, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 1305 East West Highway (N/NMS2), 11th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by ONMS. 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, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. ONMS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matt Nichols, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 1305 East West Highway (N/NMS2), Silver Spring, MD 20910, telephone (301) 713-7262, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This Federal Register document is also accessible via the Internet at: http://www.access.thefederalregister.org/.

    I. Background

    Congress first granted NOAA the authority to issue SUPs for conducting specific activities in national marine sanctuaries in the 1988 Amendments to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (“NMSA”) (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) (Pub. L. 100-627). The NMSA allows NOAA to establish categories of activities that may be subject to an SUP. The list of applicable categories of activities was last updated in 2013 (78 FR 25957). SUPs may be issued for the placement and recovery of objects on the seabed related to public or private events, or commercial filming; the continued presence of commercial submarine cables; the disposal of cremated human remains; recreational diving near the USS Monitor; the deployment of fireworks displays; or the operation of aircraft below the minimum altitude in restricted zones of national marine sanctuaries. Congress also gave NOAA the discretion to assess an SUP fee and laid out the basic components of an SUP fee (16 U.S.C. 1441(d)). The NMSA states:

    (d) Fees—

    (1) Assessment and Collection—The Secretary may assess and collect fees for the conduct of any activity under a permit issued under this section.

    (2) Amount—The amount of the fee under this subsection shall be the equal to the sum of—

    (A) Costs incurred, or expected to be incurred, by the Secretary in issuing the permit;

    (B) Costs incurred, or expected to be incurred, by the Secretary as a direct result of the conduct of the activity for which the permit is issued, including costs of monitoring the conduct of the activity; and

    (C) An amount which represents the fair market value of the use of the sanctuary resource.

    (3) Use of Fees—Amounts collected by the Secretary in the form of fees under this section may be used by the Secretary—

    (A) For issuing and administering permits under this section; and

    (B) For expenses of managing national marine sanctuaries.

    (4) Waiver or Reduction of Fees—The Secretary may accept in-kind contributions in lieu of a fee under paragraph (2)(C), or waive or reduce any fee assessed under this subsection for any activity that does not derive profit from the access to or use of sanctuary resources.

    The purpose of this notice is to propose standard procedures for assessing fee components associated with the application for and issuance of an SUP. SUPs are generally a small portion of the total number of permits issued by ONMS. However, with the addition of new SUP categories in 2013 and the current and potential expansion of the National Marine Sanctuary System, ONMS may see a rise in the number of applications submitted annually as well as an increase in the complexity of the proposed projects. Due to this, NOAA is asking for public comment on a set of proposed standard procedures for assessing SUP fees.

    II. Summary of Fee Calculations

    When an SUP is applied for by an interested party, and ultimately issued by ONMS, the total fee assessed to the applicant will be the sum of the three categories of fees provided for in section 310(d)(2) of the NMSA: administrative costs, implementation and monitoring costs, and fair market value.

    A. Administrative Costs per 16 U.S.C. 1441(d)(2)(A)

    NOAA proposes to assess a non-refundable $50 application fee for each SUP application submitted. Administrative costs spent reviewing the permit for sufficiency and suitability would be calculated by multiplying a regional labor rate, derived from the pay rates of ONMS permitting staff and averaged across ONMS regions, by the time spent by staff reviewing each permit application. NOAA will update the rate every year to account for staff changes as well as inflation. Such administrative costs could also include, but are not necessarily limited to, any environmental analyses and consultations associated with evaluating the permit application and issuing the permit; and equipment used in permit review and issuance (e.g., vessels, dive equipment, vehicles, and general overhead). Equipment includes but is not limited to autonomous underwater vehicles, remotely operated underwater vehicles, and sampling equipment. If equipment is acquired specifically to monitor the permit, the actual cost of the acquisition will be included.

    B. Implementation and Monitoring Costs per 16 U.S.C. 1441(d)(2)(B)

    NOAA may also charge a fee for costs associated with the implementation and monitoring of a permitted activity. Such costs would include staff time (calculated similarly to the labor rate described above), equipment use (including vessels or aircraft to oversee permit implementation), the expenses of monitoring the impacts of a permitted activity, and compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit.

    C. Fair Market Value per 16 U.S.C. 1441(d)(2)(C))

    To date, NOAA ONMS has assessed fair market value (FMV) fees assessed for an SUP on a case-by-case basis. The SUP category for continued operation and maintenance of submarine cables is the only category that has an established protocol for determining FMV (Aug. 28, 2002; 67 FR 55201). Conducting in-depth economic valuation studies for each SUP application are normally overly burdensome for NOAA and the permit applicant relative to the scope and effects of proposed SUP projects. In proposing standard FMV fees for the other six SUP categories, NOAA has examined the fees assessed for past SUPs as well as comparable fees assessed by other federal, state, and local agencies for similar activities. NOAA is proposing to adopt a standard FMV fee structure for the remaining SUP categories, and is requesting public comment on the following set of FMV fees:

    1. The placement and recovery of objects associated with public or private events on non-living substrate of the submerged lands of any national marine sanctuary. The FMV for this activity would be $200 per event, based on fee values historically applied at national marine sanctuaries for this activity.

    2. The placement and recovery of objects related to commercial filming. With this notice, NOAA would adopt the fee structure below from the National Park Service (NPS), which shares a similar mandate with ONMS to protect natural spaces of national importance. ONMS has determined NPS's broad evaluation methods to be sound and within the intent of ONMS SUPs for commercial filming.

    FMV Fee Table for Placement and Recovery of Objects Associated With Commercial Filming Events Number of people Motion pictures/videos Number of people Still photography 1-10 $150/day 1-10 $50/day. 11-30 250/day 11-30 150/day. 31-49 500/day Over 30 250/day. Over 50 750/day

    The number of people refers to the cast and/or crew on location within the sanctuary for the commercial filming event, including pre- and post-production.

    3. The continued presence of commercial submarine cables on or within the submerged lands of any national marine sanctuary. NOAA assesses FMV for submarine cables in national marine sanctuaries based on the findings of its 2002 study entitled “Fair Market Value Analysis for a Fiber Optic Cable Permit in National Marine Sanctuaries”(67 FR 55201). FMV for cables is assessed annually and adjusted according to the consumer price index. NOAA would continue using this methodology for assessing FMV fees for the continued presence of commercial submarine cables.

    4. The disposal of cremated human remains (“cremains”)within or into any national marine sanctuary. NOAA would waive all fees, including the FMV fee, for private individuals disposing of cremains, but NOAA would assess a $50 per disposal FMV fee for commercial operators. This value is based on similar practices of state governments, such as the State of Washington, which assesses a $70 flat fee for a Cremated Human Remains Disposition Permit for disposal of cremains by airplane, boat, or other disposal methods for businesses.

    5. Recreational diving near the USS Monitor. NOAA would waive the FMV fee for any SUP issued for recreational diving within Monitor National Marine Sanctuary, given that 1) individual recreational divers do not derive profits from their use of the sanctuary; and 2) permits for commercial recreational divers further the sanctuary's objectives by educating the public about the sanctuary and the historical significance of the U.S.S. Monitor.

    6. Fireworks displays. The FMV for fireworks would be a tiered structure based on the number of fireworks events conducted per calendar year. The fee schedule would be as follows: 1 event per calendar year—$100; 2-5 events per calendar year—$300; 6-10 events per calendar year—$500; 11-20 events per calendar year—$700.

    7. The operation of aircraft below the minimum altitude in restricted zones of national marine sanctuaries. The FMV would be $500 per site/per day. This is an existing value that has been applied historically at national marine sanctuaries for this activity.

    III. Waiver or Reduction of Fees

    NOAA may accept in-kind contributions in lieu of a fee, or waive or reduce any fee assessed for any activity that does not derive profit from the access to or use of sanctuary resources. NOAA may consider the benefits of the activity to support the goals and objectives of the sanctuary as an in-kind contribution in lieu of a fee.

    IV. Request for Comments

    NOAA is requesting comments on the proposed methods for assessment of SUP fees.

    V. Classification A. National Environmental Policy Act

    NOAA has concluded that this action will not have a significant effect, individually or cumulatively, on the human environment. This action is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement in accordance with Section 6.03c3(i) of NOAA Administrative Order 216-6. Specifically, this action is a notice of an administrative and legal nature. Furthermore, individual permit actions by NOAA will be subject to additional case-by-case analysis, as required under NEPA, which will be completed as new permit applications are submitted for specific projects and activities.

    NOAA also expects that many of these individual actions will also meet the criteria of one or more of the categorical exclusions described in NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 because SUPs cannot be issued for activities that are expected to result in any destruction of, injury to, or loss of any sanctuary resource. However, the SUP authority may at times be used to allow activities that may meet the Council on Environmental Quality's definition of the term “significant” despite the lack of apparent environmental impacts. In addition, NOAA may, in certain circumstances, combine its SUP authority with other regulatory authorities to allow activities not described above that may result in environmental impacts and thus require the preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. In these situations NOAA will ensure that the appropriate NEPA documentation is prepared prior to taking final action on a permit or making any irretrievable or irreversible commitment of agency resources.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Notwithstanding any other provisions 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 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. Applications for the SUPs discussed in this notice involve a collection-of information requirement subject to the requirements of the PRA. OMB has approved this collection-of-information requirement under OMB control number 0648-0141.

    Dated: July 20, 2015. John Armor, Acting Director, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19121 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XA629 Marine Mammals; File No. 15471-02 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; issuance of permit amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that to Michael Adkesson, D.V.M., Chicago Zoological Society, 3300 Golf Rd., Brookfield, IL 60527 has been issued a minor amendment to Scientific Research Permit No. 15471-01.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Skidmore, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The original permit (No. 15741), issued on August 23, 2010 (75 FR 52721), and subsequent amendment (No. 15741-01; 76 FR 60808) authorizes the importation of biological samples from South American fur seals (Arctocephalus australis) and South American sea lions (Otaria flavescens) for scientific research. These samples are part of ongoing health assessment studies of these species in Punta San Juan, Peru. The minor amendment (No. 15741-02) extends the duration of the permit for an additional year (August 31, 2016), but does not change any other terms or conditions of the permit.

    Dated: August 4, 2015. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19431 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Additions to the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Effective date September 7, 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 6/12/2015 (80 FR 33485-33489) and 6/26/2015 (80 FR 36773-36774), 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 furnish the products and service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products 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 products and service to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products 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 products and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products and service are added to the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7510-00-272-9805—Envelope, Transparent, Large, 10”x13” 7510-00-NIB-9955—Envelope, Transparent, Large, 10”x13” Mandatory Source of Supply: Georgia Industries for the Blind, Bainbridge, GA Mandatory Purchase For: Total Government Requirement Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Distribution: A-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6135-01-447-0949—Non-rechargeable, 9V alkaline battery Mandatory Source of Supply: Eastern Carolina Vocational Center, Inc., Greenville, NC Mandatory Purchase For: Total Government Requirement Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime, Columbus, OH Distribution: A-List Service: Service Type: Janitorial Service Service is Mandatory For: USDA Forest Service White Mountain National Forest Headquarters, 71 White Mountain Drive, Campton, NH Mandatory Source of Supply: Community Workshops, Inc., Boston, MA Contracting Activity: Forest Service, Allegheny National Forest, Warren, PA Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19440 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List Proposed Deletion AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Deletion from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to delete a service from the Procurement List previously provided by the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    Comments Must be Received on or Before: 9/7/2015.

    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 or to Submit Comments 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 action.

    Deletion

    The following service is proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Service: Service Type: Rebuilding Auto Components Service. Mandatory For: Unknown. Mandatory Source of Supply: Federation Employment and Guidance Service, Inc., New York, NY (deleted). Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator, Washington, DC. Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19439 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection, Comment Request, Foreign Board of Trade Registration AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and to allow 60 days for public comment. The Commission adopted on December 5, 2011, a final rule, as authorized by the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), requiring foreign boards of trade (“FBOT”) that wish to provide their identified members or other participants located in the United States with direct access to their electronic trading and order matching systems to register with the Commission. This notice solicits comments on the reporting requirements applicable to FBOTs that apply for registration and to the reporting requirements applicable to registered FBOTs as identified in the final rule.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before October 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by “FBOT Registration” or PRA collection 3038-0101 by any of the following methods:

    • The Agency's Web site, at http://comments.cftc.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail above.

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

    Please submit your comments using only one method.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Duane C. Andresen, Associate Director, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5492; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.

    Title: Information Management Requirements for Registration of Foreign Boards of Trade (OMB Control No. 3038-0101). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: Section 738 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended section 4(b) of the Commodity Exchange Act to provide that the Commission may adopt rules and regulations requiring FBOTs that wish to provide their members or other participants located in the United States with direct access to the FBOT's electronic trading and order matching system to register with the Commission. Pursuant to this authorization, the CFTC adopted a final rule requiring FBOTs that wish to permit trading by direct access to provide certain information to the Commission in applications for registration and, once registered, to provide certain information to meet quarterly and annual reporting requirements.

    With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

    • Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

    • The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.1 The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the Information Collection Request will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

    1 17 CFR 145.9.

    Burden Statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to range from 1000 hours for the submission of a new registration application to two to eight hours per response for submission of required reports. These estimates include the time to locate, compile, validate, and verify and disclose and to ensure such information is maintained.

    Respondents/Affected Entities: Foreign Boards of Trade.

    Estimated number of respondents: 271.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 11,756 hours.

    Frequency of collection: Once for new applications, quarterly and annually for required reports.

    (Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) Dated: August 3, 2015. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19394 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0085, Rule 50.50 End-User Notification of Non-Cleared Swaps AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment. This notice solicits comments on reporting requirements relating to financial resource requirements for derivatives clearing organizations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before October 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by “Rule 50.50 End-User Notification of Non-Cleared Swaps,” by any of the following methods:

    • The Agency's Web site, at http://comments.cftc.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail above.

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

    Please submit your comments using only one method.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peter A. Kals, Division of Clearing and Risk, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418-5466; email: [email protected] and refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0085.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the Commission is publishing notice of the proposed extension of the collection of information listed below.

    Title: Rule 50.50 End-User Notification of Non-Cleared Swap (OMB Control No. 3038-0085). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: Rule 50.50 specifies requirements for non-financial end-users who elect the exception from the Commission's swap clearing requirement set forth in section 2(h)(7) of the Commodity Exchange Act. Among the requirements of Rule 50.50 is reporting certain information to a swap data repository registered with the Commission.

    With respect to the collection of information, the Commission invites comments on:

    • Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

    • The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.1

    1 17 CFR 145.9.

    The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the Information Collection Request will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Burden Statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to require between 10 minutes and one hour per response.

    Respondents/Affected Entities: Non-financial end-users.

    Estimated number of respondents: 1,092.

    Estimated total average annual burden on respondents: 633 hours.

    Frequency of collection: On occasion; annually.

    (Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) Dated: August 3, 2015. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19401 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0096, Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and to allow 60 days for public comment. This notice solicits comments on the swap data recordkeeping and reporting requirements codified in 17 CFR part 45. This part imposes recordkeeping and reporting requirements on the following entities: Swap Data Repositories (“SDRs”), Swap Execution Facilities (“SEFs”), Designated Contract Markets (“DCMs”), Derivatives Clearing Organizations (“DCOs”), Swap Dealers (“SDs”), Major Swap Participants (“MSPs)”, and swap counterparties that are neither swap dealers nor major swap participants (“non-SD/MSP counterparties”).

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before October 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by “Renewal of Collection Pertaining to Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements,” or Renewal 3038-0096, by any of the following methods:

    • The Agency's Web site, at http://comments.cftc.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    • Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    • Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail above.

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

    Please submit your comments using only one method.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Guerin, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street NW., (202) 734-4194; email: [email protected], and refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0096.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.

    Title: Swap Data Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements (OMB Control No. 3038-0096). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: The collection of information is needed to ensure that the CFTC and other regulators have access to complete data concerning swaps, as required by the Commodity Exchange Act as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). The data would be reported to and maintained in SDRs, where it would not be disclosed publicly, but would be available to the CFTC and other financial regulators for fulfillment of various regulatory mandates. The information is for use by government entities to provide oversight and supervision and to ensure compliance with statutes and regulations relating to swaps.

    With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

    • Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

    • The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.1

    1 17 CFR 145.9.

    The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the Information Collection Request will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Burden Statement: The total annual time burden for this collection is estimated to be 445,910 hours. This estimate includes the time to comply with swap data recordkeeping and reporting requirements codified in 17 CFR part 45. Provisions of CFTC Regulations 45.2, 45.3, 45.4, 45.5, 45.6, 45.7, and 45.14 result in information collection requirements within the meaning of the PRA. To the extent that the recordkeeping and reporting requirements codified in 17 CFR part 45 overlap with the requirements of other rulemakings for which the CFTC prepared and submitted an information collection burden estimate to OMB, the burden associated with the requirements are not being accounted for in the burden estimate for information collections under 17 CFR part 45 to avoid unnecessary duplication of information collection burdens.

    Respondents/Affected Entities: SDRs, SEFs, DCMS, DCOs, SDs, MSPs, and non-SD/MSP counterparties.

    Estimated number of respondents: 30,210.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 445,910 hours.

    Frequency of collection: Ongoing.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19402 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent to Renew Collection Number 3038-0079, Conflict of Interest Policies and Procedures by Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment. This notice solicits comments on the collections of information mandated by Commission regulation 23.605 (Conflicts of interest policies and procedures).

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before October 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by “Conflict of Interest Policies and Procedures by Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants,” and Collection Number 3038-0079 by any of the following methods:

    • The Agency's Web site, at http://comments.cftc.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    • Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    • Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail above.

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Portal. Please submit your comments using only one method.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to www.cftc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jacob Chachkin, Special Counsel, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5496; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.

    Title: Conflict of Interest Policies and Procedures by Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants (OMB Control No. 3038-0079). This is a request for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: On April 3, 2012 the Commission adopted Commission regulation 23.605 (Conflicts of interest policies and procedures) 1 under section 4s(j)(5) 2 of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). Commission regulation 23.605 requires, among other things, that swap dealers (“SD”) 3 and major swap participants (“MSP”) 4 adopt and implement conflicts of interest procedures and disclosures, establish written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the conflicts of interest and disclosure obligations within the regulations, and maintain specified records related to those requirements.5 The Commission believes that the information collection obligations imposed by Commission regulation 23.605 are essential (i) to ensuring that SDs and MSPs develop and maintain the conflicts of interest systems, procedures and disclosures required by the CEA, and Commission regulations, and (ii) to the effective evaluation of these registrants' actual compliance with the CEA and Commission regulations.

    1 17 CFR 23.605.

    2 7 U.S.C. 6s(j)(5).

    3 For the definition of SD, see section 1a(49) of the CEA and Commission regulation 1.3(ggg). 7 U.S.C. 1a(49) and 17 CFR 1.3(ggg).

    4 For the definitions of MSP, see section 1a(33) of the CEA and Commission regulation 1.3(hhh). 7 U.S.C. a(33) and 17 CFR 1.3(hhh).

    5See 17 CFR 23.605.

    With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

    • Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

    • The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.6

    6 17 CFR 145.9.

    The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the information collection request will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Burden Statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be as follows:

    Number of Registrants: 125.

    Estimated Average Burden Hours Per Registrant: 44.5.

    Estimated Aggregate Burden Hours: 5,562.5.

    Frequency of Recordkeeping: As applicable.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19387 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (“ICR”) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before September 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in OMB, within 30 days of the notice's publication, by email at [email protected] Please identify the comments by OMB Control No. 3038-0092. Please provide the Commission with a copy of all submitted comments at the address listed below. Please refer to OMB Reference No. 3038-0092, found on http://reginfo.gov. Comments may also be mailed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, or through the Agency's Web site at http://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    Comments may also be mailed to: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581 or by Hand Deliver/Courier at the same address.

    A copy of the supporting statements for the collection of information discussed above may be obtained by visiting RegInfo.gov. All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures set forth in section 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Hower, Special Counsel, Division of Clearing and Risk, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-6703; email: [email protected], and refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0092.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Customer Clearing Documentation and Timing of Acceptance for Clearing (OMB Control No. 3038-0092). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: Section 4d(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA” or “Act”), as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, directs the Commission to require futures commission merchants (“FCMs”) to implement conflict of interest procedures that address such issues the Commission determines to be appropriate. Similarly, section 4s(j)(5), as added by the Dodd-Frank Act, requires swap dealers (“SDs”) and major swap participants (“MSPs”) to implement conflict of interest procedures that address such issues the Commission determines to be appropriate. Section 4s(j)(5) also requires SDs and MSPs to ensure that any persons providing clearing activities or making determinations as to accepting clearing customers are separated by appropriate informational partitions from persons whose involvement in pricing, trading, or clearing activities might bias their judgment or contravene the core principle of open access. Section 4s(j)(6) of the CEA prohibits a swap dealer and major swap participant from adopting any process or taking any action that results in any unreasonable restraint on trade or imposes any material anticompetitive burden on trading or clearing, unless necessary or appropriate to achieve the purposes of the Act. Section 2(h)(1)(B)(ii) of the CEA requires that derivatives clearing organization (“DCO”) rules provide for the non-discriminatory clearing of swaps executed bilaterally or through an unaffiliated designated contract market or swap execution facility.

    Pursuant to these provisions, the Commission adopted § 1.71(d)(1) relating to FCMs and § 23.605(d)(1) relating to swap dealers and major swap participants. These regulations prohibit swap dealers and major swap participants from interfering or attempting to influence the decisions of affiliated FCMs with regard to the provision of clearing services and activities and prohibit FCMs from permitting them to do so. The Commission also adopted § 23.607 to prohibit swap dealers and major swap participants from adopting any process or taking any action that results in any unreasonable restraint on trade or imposes any material anticompetitive burden on trading or clearing, unless necessary or appropriate to achieve the purposes of the Act. The Commission adopted § 39.12(b)(2) requiring that derivatives clearing organization rules provide for the non-discriminatory clearing of swaps executed bilaterally or through an unaffiliated designated contract market or swap execution facility.

    As discussed further below, the additional information collection burden arising from the proposed regulations primarily is restricted to the costs associated with the affected registrants' obligation to maintain records related to clearing documentation between the customer and the customer's clearing member.

    The information collection obligations imposed by the regulations are necessary to implement certain provisions of the CEA, including ensuring that registrants exercise effective risk management and for the efficient operation of trading venues among SDs, MSPs, FCMs, and DCOs.

    Burden Statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to average 16 hours for FCMs and SDs and MSPs, and 40 hours for DCOs per response. This estimate includes the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. The total annual cost burden per respondent is estimated to be $736 for FCMs, SDs, and MSPs and $1,840 for DCOs. The Commission based its calculation on an hourly wage rate of $46 for a financial manager to maintain the data.

    Respondents/Affected Entities: Swap dealers, Major Swap Participants, Futures Commission Merchants, and Derivatives Clearing Organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 239 Swap Dealers, Major Swap Participants and Futures Commission Merchants, and 14 Derivatives Clearing Organizations.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 3,824 for FCMs, SDs, and MSPs, and 560 hours for DCOs.

    Frequency of Collection: As needed.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: August 4, 2015. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19448 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request AGENCY:

    Corporation for National and Community Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled AmeriCorps Child Care Program Information Collection for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Jennifer Veazey, at 202-606-6770 or email to [email protected] Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    DATES:

    Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, within September 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register:

    (1) By fax to: 202-395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; or

    (2) By email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Propose 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

    A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2015 at Volume 80, No. 72 FR 20200. This comment period ended June 15, 2015. No public comments were received from this Notice.

    Description

    The information collection is requested of AmeriCorps Members who are applying for the AmeriCorps Child Care benefit (or in some cases, member of their households); information collected is used to determine a member's eligibility based upon statutory, regulatory, and program eligibility requirements. In addition, the information collection is requested of the child care providers to determine a child care provider's eligibility to provide the child care service.

    Information is collected via hardcopy and electronically through an online application system.

    CNCS seeks to renew the current AmeriCorps Child Care Application and add four new instruments: the AmeriCorps Member Application, Attendance Sheet, Member Update Form, and Statement of Work Activities.

    The information collection will otherwise be used in the same manner as the existing application.

    Type of Review: Renewal.

    Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

    Title: AmeriCorps Child Care Program Forms.

    OMB Number: 3045-0142.

    Agency Number: None.

    Affected Public: AmeriCorps Members and Child Care Providers.

    Total Respondents: 1400 total: 700 AmeriCorps Members and 700 Child Care Providers.

    Frequency: Annual.

    Average Time Per Response

    AmeriCorps Member Application: 60 minutes.

    Member Update Form: 5 minutes.

    Statement of Work Activities Form (completed by Member): 10 minutes.

    AmeriCorps Child Care Provider Application: 40 minutes.

    Attendance Sheet (completed by Provider and signed by Member): 20 minutes.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,575 hours.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Erin Dahlin, Deputy Chief of Program Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19371 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2015-OS-0028] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Personnel Security System Access Request (PSSAR) Form; DD Form 2962; OMB Control Number 0704-XXXX.

    Type of Request: New.

    Number of Respondents: 44,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 44,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 7,333.

    Needs and Uses: JPAS requires personal data collection to facilitate the initiation, investigation and adjudication of information relevant to DoD security clearances and employment suitability determinations for military, civilian employees and contractors seeking such credentials. Security Managers working in private companies that contract with DoD and require access to JPAS to update security-related information about their company's employees must complete DD Form 2962 to access JPAS. Completion of the form assures users have met the requirements for access to the system of record.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

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

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19376 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION International Resource Information System (IRIS); Title; OMB Number; Correction AGENCY:

    Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Correction Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    On August 4, 2015 the U.S. Department of Education published a 30-day comment period notice in the Federal Register Page 46253 Column 3; Page 46254, Column 1 seeking public comment for an information collection Docket ID Number ED-2014-ICCD-0154 entitled, “Evaluation of the Pell Grant Experiments under the Experimental Sites Initiative”. ED is requesting a correction to the Title and OMB Number. The correct title is International Resource Information System (IRIS), and the correct OMB Number is 1840-0759.

    The Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    Dated: August 4, 2015. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19442 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0099] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Student Assistance General Provisions—Student Right-to-Know (SRK) AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://wwww.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0099. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E103, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Title of Collection: Student Assistance General Provisions—Student Right-to-Know (SRK).

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0004.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector, State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 30,022.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 18,670.

    Abstract: Eligible participating institutions are required to provide this SRK information to all enrolled students, prospective students prior to their enrolling or entering into a financial obligation with the school as well as to institution's employees. The regulations in 34 CFR 668.41 relate to the required annual notices an institution must provide to current and prospective students and current and prospective employees as well as information that must be made available to any party who requests it, including the methods that the information may disclosed. The regulations in 34 CFR 668.45 relate to the required calculation and availability of an institution's completion or graduation rates of its certificate or degree seeking, first-time, full-time undergraduate students using the Department's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Web site.

    Dated: August 4, 2015. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19443 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0067] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Assessing the Role of Noncognitive and School Environmental Factors in Students' Transitions to High School in New Mexico AGENCY:

    Department of Education (ED), Institute of Education Sciences (IES).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://wwww.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2025-ICCD-0067 Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E105, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Christopher Boccanfuso, 202-219-1674.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Title of Collection: Assessing the Role of Noncognitive and School Environmental Factors in Students' Transitions to High School in New Mexico.

    OMB Control Number: 1850—NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 2,591.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 773.

    Abstract: The study will examine relationships between non-cognitive factors (e.g., growth mindset, learning strategies, and self-efficacy) and school environment and contextual factors (e.g., perceptions of school safety, supportive teachers and counselors, usefulness of academic work) and three measures of successful 9th grade transitions—overall freshman GPA, number of 9th grade course failures, and freshman year attendance for three districts in New Mexico. It will also examine whether non-cognitive and school environment factors contribute to the prediction of successful 9th grade transitions after academic factors have been taken into account. The study will use data that will be collected via a survey that was created with assistance from members of the New Mexico Achievement Gap Alliance. The survey data will be used in combination with extant student-level academic and demographic data that will be obtained from the New Mexico Public Education Department. This study will also include comparisons between Hispanic, Native American and white students.

    Dated: August 4, 2015. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19468 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER15-2367-000] Nittany Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Nittany Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 24, 2015.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19421 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG15-107-000.

    Applicants: Cedar Bluff Wind, LLC.

    Description: Notice of self-certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Cedar Bluff Wind, LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/31/15.

    Accession Number: 20150731-5302.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3417-009; ER10-2895-013; ER14-1964-004; ER13-2143-006; ER10-3167-005; ER13-203-005; ER11-2292-013; ER11-3942-012; ER11-2293-013; ER10-2917-013; ER11-2294-012; ER12-2447-011; ER13-1613-006; ER10-2918-014; ER10-2920-013; ER11-3941-011; ER10-2921-013; ER10-2922-013; ER13-1346-005; ER10-2966-013; ER11-2383-008; ER10-3178-006.

    Applicants: Alta Wind VIII, LLC, Bear Swamp Power Company LLC, BIF II Safe Harbor Holdings, LLC, Black Bear Development Holdings, LLC, Black Bear Hydro Partners, LLC, Black Bear SO, LLC, Brookfield Energy Marketing Inc., Brookfield Energy Marketing LP, Brookfield Energy Marketing US LLC, Brookfield Power Piney & Deep Creek LLC, Brookfield Renewable Energy Marketing US LLC, Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower LLC, Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC, Carr Street Generating Station, L.P., Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., Granite Reliable Power, LLC, Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC, Hawks Nest Hydro LLC, Mesa Wind Power Corporation, Rumford Falls Hydro LLC, Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation, Windstar Energy, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the Brookfield Companies.

    Filed Date: 7/31/15.

    Accession Number: 20150731-5305.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1943-003.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2015-07-31_MISO-PJM Order 1000 Interregional Compliance to be effective 1/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 7/31/15.

    Accession Number: 20150731-5236.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1944-002.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing per 12/18/14 Order in Docket No. ER13-1944-000 to be effective 1/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 7/31/15.

    Accession Number: 20150731-5205.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1682-001.

    Applicants: TransCanyon DCR, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: TO Tariff CWIP Compliance Filing to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 7/31/15.

    Accession Number: 20150731-5246.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2129-000.

    Applicants: Slate Creek Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to July 8, 2015 Slate Creek Wind Project, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 7/31/15.

    Accession Number: 20150731-5298.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2130-000.

    Applicants: Roosevelt Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to July 8, 2015 Roosevelt Wind Project, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 7/31/15.

    Accession Number: 20150731-5297.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2131-000.

    Applicants: Milo Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to July 8, 2015 Milo Wind Project, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 7/31/15.

    Accession Number: 20150731-5296.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2358-000.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to CDWR's Load Interconnection Agreement reflecting Amendment No. 1 to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 7/31/15.

    Accession Number: 20150731-5219.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2359-000.

    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: OATT Attachment P Revisions to be effective 9/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 7/31/15.

    Accession Number: 20150731-5241.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2360-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Basin Electric Power Cooperative Contract Services Agreement to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 7/31/15.

    Accession Number: 20150731-5245.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2361-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 3065 Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. Market Participant Agr to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 7/31/15.

    Accession Number: 20150731-5247.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2362-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreements Nos. 4225 & 4226; Queue Nos. V1-011 & V1-012 to be effective 10/3/2014.

    Filed Date: 7/31/15.

    Accession Number: 20150731-5248.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2363-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 3070 WAPA-UGP Market Participant Service Agreement to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 7/31/15.

    Accession Number: 20150731-5251.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2364-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-07-31_Prairie Power Attachment O Filing to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 7/31/15.

    Accession Number: 20150731-5253.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2365-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: OATT EIM—Rev to Enhance Operation to be effective 9/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 7/31/15.

    Accession Number: 20150731-5255.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2366-000.

    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Black Hills Power, Inc. JOATT Schedule 2 to be effective 9/29/2015.

    Filed Date: 7/31/15.

    Accession Number: 20150731-5257.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2367-000.

    Applicants: Nittany Energy, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Nittany Energy LLC Market Based Rate Tariff to be effective 9/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20150803-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2368-000.

    Applicants: RC Cape May Holdings, LLC.

    Description: Request for Waiver of RC Cape May Holdings, LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20150803-5069.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2369-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-08-03_SA 2824 ATC-Marshfield Facilities Construction Agreement to be effective 10/2/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20150803-5095.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2370-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Request for Limited Waiver of Must Offer Exception Pre-Notification Date to be effective 8/25/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/3/15.

    Accession Number: 20150803-5113.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES15-40-000; ES15-42-000; ES15-43-000; ES15-44-000; ES15-45-000; ES15-46-000; ES15-47-000; ES15-48-000.

    Applicants: Jersey Central Power & Light Co., Pennsylvania Power Company, Pennsylvania Electric Company, Metropolitan Edison Company, West Penn Power Company, Monongahela Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company, Trans- Allegheny Interstate Line Company.

    Description: Application of Jersey Central Power & Light Company, et al. for Authorization under Section 204(a) of the Federal Power Act to Issue Short-Term Debt Securities.

    Filed Date: 7/31/15.

    Accession Number: 20150731-5287.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: ES15-41-000.

    Applicants: Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, Inc.

    Description: Application for Authorization to Issue Short- and Long-term Debt, to Guaranty Obligations, and for Waivers of Old Dominion Electric Cooperative.

    Filed Date: 7/31/15.

    Accession Number: 20150731-5289.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA15-2-000.

    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company, Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. Dominion Energy Manchester Street, Inc. Dominion Retail, Inc. Fairless Energy, LLC, NedPower Mt. Storm, LLC, Fowler Ridge Wind Farm, LLC, Dominion Bridgeport Fuel Cell, LLC, RE Columbia Two LLC, RE Camelot LLC, Selmer Farm, LLC, Mulberry Farm, LLC, CID Solar, LLC, Cottonwood Solar, LLC, Pavant Solar LLC.

    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Dominion Resources Services, Inc.

    Filed Date: 7/31/15.

    Accession Number: 20150731-5288.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    Docket Numbers: LA15-2-000.

    Applicants: Adelanto Solar, LLC, Adelanto Solar II, LLC, Ashtabula Wind, LLC, Ashtabula Wind II, LLC, Ashtabula Wind III, LLC, Backbone Mountain Windpower, LLC, Baldwin Wind, LLC, Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC, Blackwell Wind, LLC, Butler Ridge Wind Energy Center, LLC, Cimarron Wind Energy, LLC, Crystal Lake Wind, LLC, Crystal Lake Wind II, LLC, Crystal Lake Wind III, LLC, Day County Wind, LLC, Desert Sunlight 250, LLC, Desert Sunlight 300, LLC, Diablo Winds, LLC, Elk City Wind, LLC, Elk City II Wind, LLC, Energy Storage Holdings, LLC, Ensign Wind, LLC, ESI Vansycle Partners, L.P., Florida Power & Light Company, FPL Energy Burleigh County Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Cabazon Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Cape, LLC, FPL Energy Cowboy Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Green Power Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Hancock County Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Illinois Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Marcus Hook, L.P., FPL Energy MH50, L.P., FPL Energy Montezuma Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Mower County, LLC, FPL Energy New Mexico Wind, LLC, FPL Energy North Dakota Wind, LLC, FPL Energy North Dakota Wind II, LLC, FPL Energy Oklahoma Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Oliver Wind I, LLC, FPL Energy Oliver Wind II, LLC, FPL Energy Sooner Wind, LLC, FPL Energy South Dakota Wind, LLC, FPL Energy Stateline II, Inc. FPL Energy Vansycle, LLC, FPL Energy Wyman, LLC, FPL Energy Wyman IV, LLC, Garden Wind, LLC, Genesis Solar, LLC, Gray County Wind Energy, LLC, Hatch Solar Energy Center I, LLC, Hawkeye Power Partners, LLC, High Majestic Wind Energy Center, LLC, High Majestic Wind II, LLC, High Winds, LLC, Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC, Lake Benton Power Partners II, LLC, Langdon Wind, LLC, Limon Wind, LLC, Limon Wind II, LLC, Limon Wind III, LLC, Logan Wind Energy LLC, Mammoth Plains Wind Project, LLC, Mantua Creek Solar, LLC, McCoy Solar, LLC, Meyersdale Windpower LLC, Mill Run Windpower, LLC, Minco Wind, LLC, Minco Wind II, LLC, Minco Wind III, LLC, Minco Wind Interconnection Services, LLC, Mountain View Solar, LLC, NEPM II, LLC, NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, NextEra Energy Montezuma II Wind, LLC, NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, NextEra Energy Power Marketing, LLC, NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, NextEra Energy Services Massachusetts, LLC, Northeast Energy Associates, LP, North Jersey Energy Associates, A Limited Partnership, North Sky River Energy, LLC, Northern Colorado Wind Energy, LLC, Osceola Windpower, LLC, Osceola Windpower II, LLC, Palo Duro Wind Energy, LLC, Palo Duro Wind Interconnection Services, LLC, Paradise Solar Urban Renewal, L.L.C., Peetz Table Wind Energy, LLC, Pennsylvania Windfarms, LLC, Perrin Ranch Wind, LLC, Pheasant Run Wind, LLC, Red Mesa Wind, LLC, Seiling Wind, LLC, Seiling Wind II, LLC, Seiling Wind Interconnection Services, LLC, Shafter Solar, LLC, Sky River LLC, Somerset Windpower, LLC, Steele Flats Wind Project, LLC, Story Wind, LLC, Tuscola Bay Wind, LLC, Tuscola Wind II, LLC, Vasco Winds, LLC, Waymart Wind Farm, L.P., Wessington Wind Energy Center, LLC, White Oak Energy LLC, Wilton Wind II, LLC, Windpower Partners 1993, LLC.

    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of the NextEra Companies.

    Filed Date: 7/31/15.

    Accession Number: 20150731-5301.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19419 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2114-209] Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County; Notice of Application and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Application Type: Recreation resources management plan amendment pertaining to recreation facilities and amenities at Crescent Bar.

    b. Project No: 2114-209.

    c. Date Filed: May 26, 2015 and supplemented July 29, 2015.

    d. Applicant: Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County.

    e. Name of Project: Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Project is located on the mid-Columbia River in portions of Grant, Yakima, Kittitas, Douglas, Benton, and Chelan counties, Washington.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Shannon Lowry, Land and Recreation Manager, Grant PUD, P.O. Box 878, Ephrata, WA 98823-0878, or at (509) 754-5088 ext. 2191, or email: [email protected]

    i. FERC Contact: Mary Karwoski at (202) 502-6543, or email: [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: September 2, 2015.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-2114-209.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests Commission approval to modify the recreation resources management plan, pursuant to Article 418. The licensee proposes to relocate the existing off-island overnight camping facility and redevelop the existing 6.2 acre site into an enhanced day-use area, including: additional picnic furnishing and sites, shade structures, restroom with outdoor beach shower, site signage, an expanded and clearly defined swim area, and redeveloped on-site parking. A new 55-site overnight camping facility will be constructed on Crescent Bar Island and integrated with the existing 9-hole golf course. The golf course will remain with some modifications. A conceptual plan of the layout of the proposed 55-site campground is provided in the licensee's application.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19422 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 8296-060] Malacha Hydro Limited Partnership and Juniper Ridge Ranches, Inc.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Application Type: Request to stay requirements of article 409 of project license.

    b. Project No.: 8296-060.

    c. Date Filed: January 6, 2015.

    d. Applicants: Malacha Hydro Limited Partnership and Juniper Ridge Ranches, Inc.

    e. Name of Project: Muck Valley Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The project is located on the Pit River in Lassen County, California.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Maria Litos, Director of Asset Management, Pacific Operations, Brookfield Renewable Energy Group, 601 S. Figeuroa, Suite 2200, Los Angeles, CA 90017, telephone: 213-995-9905.

    i. FERC Contact: Jon Cofrancesco, telephone: (202) 502-8951, and email address: [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: September 1, 2015.

    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail a copy to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-8296-060) on any comments or motions filed.

    k. Description of Request: Article 409 requires Malacha Hydro Limited Partnership and Juniper Ridge Ranches, Inc. (licensees) to upgrade existing access to adjacent public lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including the construction of trail-head parking facilities, within five years from license issuance. The project license was issued on December 2, 1986. Since license issuance, the licensees have been unable to fulfill this license condition due to an on-going land exchange matter between the BLM and a private landowner, whose land is necessary to provide access to the trailhead parking facilities. The BLM land to be exchanged for the landowner's property is located within the Pit River Canyon Wilderness Study Area. The BLM cannot implement the land exchange until Congress acts to either designate these lands as wilderness or release the lands. Until Congress acts, BLM cannot complete the land exchange and the licensees cannot construct the required trailhead facilities. For these reasons, the licensees request a stay of five years for article 409 to allow Congress additional time to act on the Pit River Canyon Wilderness Study Area.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the amendment application. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19423 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-503-000] Comanche Trail Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed San Elizario Crossing Project; Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the San Elizario Crossing Project involving construction and operation of specific border crossing facilities for the export of natural gas by Comanche Trail Pipeline, LLC (Comanche Trail) in El Paso County, Texas. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public interest.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before September 2, 2015.

    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on May 29, 2015, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP15-503-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    Comanche Trail provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?”. This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

    Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected] Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing” as the filing type; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP15-503-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Summary of the Proposed Project

    Comanche Trail proposes to construct and operate a new border crossing at the international boundary between the United States and Mexico in El Paso County, Texas. The San Elizario Crossing Project would consist of the construction of approximately 1,086 feet of FERC-jurisdictional 42-inch-diameter pipeline, installed using a horizontal directional drill (HDD) beneath the Rio Grande River near the City of San Elizario in El Paso, Texas. The new pipeline would have a maximum design export capacity of approximately 1.1 billion cubic feet per day, in order to transport natural gas to a new delivery interconnect in the vicinity of the City of San Isidro, in the State of Chihuahua, Mexico.

    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.1

    Non-Jurisdictional Facilities

    The San Elizario Crossing Project has associated facilities that would be constructed in support of the project, but do not fall under the jurisdiction of the FERC. The proposed Comanche Trail intrastate pipeline facilities, consist of 196 miles of new 42-inch-diameter pipeline, multiple receipt and delivery metering stations, and other auxiliary facilities extending from Pecos County, Texas and terminating at the proposed FERC-jurisdictional project facilities in El Paso County. The intrastate facilities would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Texas Railroad Commission and would be non-jurisdictional to the FERC. In the EA, we will provide available descriptions of the non-jurisdictional facilities and include available environmental impact information under our analysis of cumulative impacts.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the San Elizario Crossing Project pipeline would affect a total of 4.2 acres of land in the United States, which includes temporary workspace for HDD construction, hydrostatic testing of the pipeline, and project access. Following construction, Comanche Trail would retain 1.3 acres as a 50-foot-wide permanent easement for operation of the FERC-jurisdictional pipeline, and the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.

    The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of an Authorization. NEPA also requires us 2 to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We note that many comments were filed prior to this notice. We want to assure those commentors that their concerns will be considered in the scope of our environmental review; you do not need to resubmit comments. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.

    2 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:

    • Geology and soils;

    • land use;

    • water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;

    • cultural resources;

    • vegetation and wildlife;

    • air quality and noise;

    • endangered and threatened species;

    • public safety; and

    • cumulative impacts.

    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. We will also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning on page 2.

    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.3 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

    3 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.

    Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.4 We will define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.

    4 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

    Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes: Federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.

    When we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-503). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19420 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9022-3] 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 07/27/2015 Through 07/31/2015 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. 20150208, Final, DOE, AL, PROGRAMMATIC—Engineered High Energy Crop (EHEC) Programs, Review Period Ends: 09/08/2015, Contact: Dr. Jonathan Burbaum 202-287-6413. EIS No. 20150209, Final, USFS, AZ, Prescott National Forest Revision of Land and Resource Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 11/05/2015, Contact: Gabrielle Kenton 928-443-8221. EIS No. 20150210, Draft, USFS, WY, Teton to Snake Fuels Management, Comment Period Ends: 09/21/2015, Contact: Steve Markason 307-739-5431. EIS No. 20150211, Draft, FHWA, LA, Houma-Thibodaux to LA 3127 Connection, Comment Period Ends: 09/21/2015, Contact: Carl Highsmith 225-757-7615. EIS No. 20150212, Draft, BLM, CA, West Of Devers Upgrade Project, Comment Period Ends: 09/21/2015, Contact: Frank McMenimen 760-833-7150. EIS No. 20150213, Final, USFS, CA, Westside Fire Recovery Project, Review Period Ends: 09/08/2015, Contact: Wendy Coats 530-841-4470. EIS No. 20150214, Draft, BR, CA, Coordinated Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project, Comment Period Ends: 09/29/2015, Contact: Janice Piñero 916-414-2428. Dated: August 4, 2015. Karin Leff, Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19441 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION Farm Credit Administration Board; Sunshine Act; Regular Meeting AGENCY:

    Farm Credit Administration.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).

    DATES:

    The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on August 13, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.

    ADDRESSES:

    Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090. Submit attendance requests via email to [email protected] See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further information about attendance requests.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. Please send an email to [email protected] at least 24 hours before the meeting. In your email include: Name, postal address, entity you are representing (if applicable), and telephone number. You will receive an email confirmation from us. Please be prepared to show a photo identification when you arrive. If you need assistance for accessibility reasons, or if you have any questions, contact Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, at (703) 883-4009. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

    Open Session A. Approval of Minutes

    • July 8, 2015

    B. New Business

    • Mergers, Consolidations and Charter Amendments of Banks and Associations—Final Rule

    Closed Session *

    • Office of Secondary Market Oversight Quarterly Report

    * Session Closed-Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552b(c)(8) and (9).

    Dated: August 4, 2015. Dale L. Aultman, Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19578 Filed 8-5-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Federal Advisory Committee Act; Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (“FCC” or “Commission”) Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee (“DSTAC”) will hold a meeting on August 28, 2015. At the meeting, the committee will consider and debate a final DSTAC report and discuss any other DSTAC issues that may arise.

    DATES:

    August 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305 (Commission Meeting Room), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information on this proceeding, contact Brendan Murray, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-1573 or Nancy Murphy, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, (202) 418-1043.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting will be held on August 28, 2015, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    The DSTAC is a Federal Advisory Committee that will “identify, report, and recommend performance objectives, technical capabilities, and technical standards of a not unduly burdensome, uniform, and technology- and platform-neutral software-based downloadable security system.”

    The meeting on August 28, 2015, will be the seventh meeting of the DSTAC. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Commission will provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the Internet from the FCC's Web page at http://fcc.gov/live. The public may submit written comments before the meeting to Brendan Murray, DSTAC Designated Federal Officer, by email to [email protected] or by U.S. Postal Service Mail to 445 12th Street SW., Room 4-A726, Washington, DC 20554.

    Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to [email protected] or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty). Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. In addition, please include a way the FCC can contact you if it needs more information. Please allow at least five days' advance notice; last-minute request will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19437 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    DATE and TIME:

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at the conclusion of the open meeting, and Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be closed to the public.

    ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

    Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.

    Internal personnel rules and internal rules and practices.

    Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.

    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Shelley E. Garr, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19504 Filed 8-5-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission

    DATE AND TIME:

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be open to the public.

    Items To Be Discussed Correction and Approval of Minutes for July 16, 2015 Draft Advisory Opinion 2015-03: Democracy Rules, Inc. Draft Advisory Opinion 2015-05: Alexina Shaber Notice to Respondents of Information Sharing by the Commission Public Disclosure of Closed Enforcement Files Management and Administrative Matters

    Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Signed:

    Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19505 Filed 8-5-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreement Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. A copy of the agreement is available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or [email protected]

    Agreement No.: 201202-006.

    Title: Oakland MTO Agreement.

    Parties: Ports America Outer Harbor Terminal, LLC; Seaside Transportation Service LLC; SSA Terminals, LLC; SSA Terminals (Oakland), LLC; and Trapac, LLC.

    Filing Party: David F. Smith, Esq.; Cozen O'Connor; 1627 I Street NW.; Suite 1100; Washington, DC 20006.

    Synopsis: The amendment would authorize the parties to implement an off-peak hours program and describe said program.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: August 4, 2015. Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19447 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-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 24, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:

    1. Gene B. Dixon, Jr., Dillwyn, Virginia, to individually and as a group acting in concert with Guy B. Dixon Trust of the Separate Grandchild's Trust for the benefit of Guy B. Dixon, Dillwyn, Virginia; Curtis Dixon Colgate, Trustee of the Separate Grandchild's Trust for the benefit of Curtis Dixon Colgate, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Arch Huddle Dixon, Trustee of the Separate Grandchild's Trust for the benefit of Arch Huddle Dixon, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Sharon Newcomb, Merritt Island, Florida; and Erica Vail Dixon, Trustee of the Separate Grandchild's Trust for the benefit of Erica Vail Dixon, Dillwyn, Virginia; to acquire voting shares of BCC Bankshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of The Bank of Charlotte County, both in Phenix, Virginia.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 4, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, <E T="03">Associate Secretary of the Board.</E>
    [FR Doc. 2015-19380 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-1641-N] Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs; Membership and Meeting Announcement for the Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces 15 membership appointments to the Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests (the Panel) and the first meeting date for the Panel. The purpose of the Panel is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (the Secretary) and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) (the Administrator) on issues related to clinical diagnostic laboratory tests. The membership appointments are for 3 years. This notice also announces the first meeting date of the Panel on Wednesday, August 26, 2015.

    DATES:

    Meeting Date: The first meeting of the Panel is scheduled to take place at CMS's headquarters in Baltimore, MD on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 beginning at 9:00 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The Panel will specifically recommend crosswalks for new laboratory codes, recommend an appropriate coding structure for drugs of abuse testing, and recommend crosswalks for such drugs of abuse testing.

    Meeting Registration

    The public may attend the meeting in-person, view via webcast, or listen via teleconference. Beginning Friday, August 7, 2015 and ending Friday, August 14, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. EDT, registration to attend the meeting in-person may be completed online at http://cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/FACA/AdvisoryPanelonClinicalDiagnosticLaboratoryTests.html. On this Web page, under “Related Links,” double-click the “Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests FACA Panel Meeting Registration” link and enter the required information. All the following information must be submitted when registering:

    • Name.

    • Company name.

    • Postal address.

    • Email address.

    Note:

    Participants who do not plan to attend the meeting in-person on August 26, 2015, should not register. No registration is required for participants who plan to view the meeting via webcast or listen via teleconference.

    Presenter Registration and Submission of Presentations and Comments

    We are interested in submitted comments or in presentations at the meeting concerning the issues described in the SUMMARY section of this notice. The comments and presentations should not duplicate those that were provided at the Annual Clinical Laboratory Public Meeting on July 16, 2015, or submitted through the comment process provided subsequent to the Annual Clinical Laboratory Public Meeting. The deadline to register to be a presenter and to submit written presentations for the meeting is 5:00 p.m. EDT, Monday, August 17, 2015. Presenters may register by phone or via email by contacting the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Presentations should be sent via email to the same person's email address.

    For reconsidered and new test codes, presenters should address all of the following items:

    • Reconsidered or new test code(s) and descriptor.

    • Test purpose and method.

    • Costs.

    • Charges.

    • A recommendation with rationale for one of the two methods (crosswalking or gapfilling) for determining payment for new tests, or a recommendation with rationale for changing the basis or payment amount, as applicable, for reconsidered tests.

    Additionally, the presenters should provide the data on which their recommendations are based.

    When registering, individuals who want to make a presentation must also specify for which new test codes they will be presenting comments. A confirmation will be sent upon receipt of the registration. Presenters must register by the date specified in the “Meeting Registration” section of this notice.

    Meeting Location, Webcast, and Teleconference

    The meetings will be held in the Auditorium, CMS Central Office, 7500 Security Boulevard, Woodlawn, Maryland 21244-1850. Alternately, the public may either view the meetings via a webcast or listen by teleconference. During the scheduled meeting, webcasting is accessible online at http://cms.gov/live. Teleconference dial-in information will appear on the final meeting agenda, which will be posted on the CMS Web site when available at http://cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/FACA/AdvisoryPanelonClinicalDiagnosticLaboratoryTests.html.

    Meeting Format

    This meeting is open to the public. The onsite check-in for visitors will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. EDT on Wednesday, August 26, 2015, followed by opening remarks. Following the opening remarks, the Panel will hear oral presentations from the public for no more than 1 hour during two sessions. During the first session, registered persons from the public may present recommendations for crosswalks for new laboratory codes for the CY 2016 CLFS. During the second session, registered persons from the public may present recommendations for drugs of abuse testing and crosswalks. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to present is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, we may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. We will accept written presentations from those who were unable to present due to time constraints.

    ADDRESSES:

    Web site: For additional information on the Panel, please refer to our Web site at http://cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/FACA/AdvisoryPanelonClinicalDiagnosticLaboratoryTests.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Glenn C. McGuirk, Designated Federal Official (DFO), Center for Medicare, Division of Ambulatory Services, CMS, 7500 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop C4-01-26, Baltimore, MD 21244, 410-786-5723, email [email protected] Press inquiries are handled through the CMS Press Office at (202) 690-6145.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests is authorized by section 1834A(f)(1) of the Social Security Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1395m-1), as established by section 216 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) (Pub. L. 113-93, enacted April 1, 2014). The Panel is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory panels.

    Section 1834A(f)(1) of the Act directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary) to consult with an expert outside advisory panel, established by the Secretary, composed of an appropriate selection of individuals with expertise in issues related to clinical diagnostic laboratory tests. Such individuals may include representatives of clinical laboratories, molecular pathologists, clinical laboratory researchers, and individuals with expertise in laboratory science or health economics.

    The Panel will provide input and recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), on the following:

    • The establishment of payment rates under section 1834A of the Act for new clinical diagnostic laboratory tests, including whether to use crosswalking or gapfilling processes to determine payment for a specific new test;

    • The factors used in determining coverage and payment processes for new clinical diagnostic laboratory tests; and

    • Other aspects of the new payment system under section 1834A of the Act.

    The Panel charter provides that panel meetings will be held up to four times annually. The Panel will consist of up to 15 individuals and a Chair. The Panel Chair will facilitate meetings and the DFO or DFO's designee must be present at all meetings. Meetings will be open to the public except as determined otherwise by the Secretary or other official to whom the authority has been delegated in accordance with the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)) and FACA. Notice of all meetings will be published in the Federal Register as required by applicable laws and Departmental regulations. Meetings will be conducted, and records of the proceedings kept, as required by applicable laws and Departmental regulations.

    In order to conduct the business of the Panel, a quorum is required. A quorum exists when a majority of currently appointed members is present at full Panel or subcommittee meetings or is participating in conference calls.

    II. Provisions of This Notice

    We published a notice in the Federal Register on October 27, 2014, entitled “Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs; Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests and Request for Nominations” (79 FR 63919 through 63920). The notice solicited nominations for up to 15 members and a Chair to serve on this Panel. This notice announces 16 new members to the Panel. Their appointments are for 3-year terms beginning July 1, 2015.

    The Panel will consist of the following members and a Chair:

    • Steve Phurrough M.D., Panel Chair, CMS Medical Officer • Geoffrey Baird, M.D., Ph.D. • Vickie Baselski, Ph.D. • Stephen N. Bauer, M.D. • William Clarke, Ph.D., M.B.A., DABCC, FACB • Judith Davis, M.S. • Stanley R. Hamilton, M.D. • Curtis A. Hanson, M.D. • Kandice Kottke-Marchant, M.D., Ph.D. • Raju Kucherlapati, Ph.D. • Bryan A. Loy, M.D., M.B.A. • Gail Marcus, M.S.E., M.B.A. • Carl Morrison, M.D., D.V.M. • Victoria M. Pratt, Ph.D., FACMG • Michele M. Schoonmaker, Ph.D. • Rebecca Sutphen, M.D. III. Meeting Attendance

    The first meeting (August 26, 2015) is open to the public; however, attendance is limited to space available. Priority will be given to those who pre-register and attendance may be limited based on the number of registrants and the space available.

    Persons wishing to attend this meeting, which is located on federal property, must register by following the instructions in the “Meeting Registration” section of this notice. A confirmation email will be sent to the registrants shortly after completing the registration process.

    IV. Security, Building, and Parking Guidelines

    The following are the security, building, and parking guidelines:

    • Persons attending the meeting, including presenters, must be pre-registered and on the attendance list by the prescribed date.

    • Individuals who are not pre-registered in advance may not be permitted to enter the building and may be unable to attend the meeting.

    • Attendees must present a government-issued photo identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel before entering the building. Without a current, valid photo ID, persons may not be permitted entry to the building.

    • Security measures include inspection of vehicles, inside and out, at the entrance to the grounds.

    • All persons entering the building must pass through a metal detector.

    • All items brought into CMS including personal items, for example, laptops and cell phones are subject to physical inspection.

    • The public may enter the building 30 to 45 minutes before the meeting convenes each day.

    • All visitors must be escorted in areas other than the lower and first-floor levels in the Central Building.

    • The main-entrance guards will issue parking permits and instructions upon arrival at the building.

    V. Special Accommodations

    Individuals requiring special accommodations must include the request for these services during registration.

    VI. Panel Recommendations and Discussions

    The Panel's recommendations will be posted to our Web site after the meeting.

    VII. Copies of the Charter

    The Secretary's Charter for the Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests is available on the CMS Web site at http://cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/FACA/AdvisoryPanelonClinicalDiagnosticLaboratoryTests.html or you may obtain a copy of the charter by submitting a request to the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

    VIII. Collection of Information Requirements

    This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Andrew M. Slavitt, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19498 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1051] Modified Risk Tobacco Product Applications: Applications for 10 Products Submitted by Swedish Match North America Inc.; Reopening of Comment Period; Correction AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice that appeared in the Federal Register of July 31, 2015 (80 FR 45661). The document reopened the period for public comment on modified risk tobacco product applications (MRTPAs) submitted by Swedish Match North America Inc. for 10 tobacco products and announced the availability for public comment of amendments to the MRTPAs. The document was published with an incorrect paragraph in the Comments section. This document corrects that error.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa Granger, Office of Policy and Planning, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9115.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In FR Doc. 2015-18782, appearing in the Federal Register of Friday, July 31, 2015, the following correction is made:

    On page 45661, in the third column, the first paragraph of the Comments section is corrected to read:

    A. General Information About Submitting Comments

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

    B. Public Availability of Comments

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

    C. Information Identifying the Person Submitting the Comment

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

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19418 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-D-2537] Request for Quality Metrics; Notice of Draft Guidance Availability and Public Meeting; Request for Comments; Correction AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice that appeared in the Federal Register of July 28, 2015 (80 FR 44973). The document published with an incorrect docket number. This document corrects that error.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa Granger, Office of Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9115.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In FR Doc. 2015-18448, appearing on page 44973, in the Federal Register of Tuesday, July 28, 2015, the following correction is made:

    On page 44973, in the first column, in the headings section of the document, “[Docket No. FDA-2014-D-2537]” is corrected to read “FDA-2015-D-2537”.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19487 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY:

    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HHS gives notice of a decision to designate a class of employees from the Westinghouse Electric Corporation in Bloomfield, New Jersey, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 1-877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7384q(b). 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C).

    On July 31, 2015, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

    All Atomic Weapons Employees who worked at the facility owned by Westinghouse Electric Corp., in Bloomfield, New Jersey, during the period from February 1, 1958, through May 31, 1958, or during the period from June 1, 1959, through June 30, 1959, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment, or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.

    This designation will become effective on August 27, 2015, unless Congress provides otherwise prior to the effective date. After this effective date, HHS will publish a notice in the Federal Register reporting the addition of this class to the SEC or the result of any provision by Congress regarding the decision by HHS to add the class to the SEC.

    John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19471 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Notice of Service Delivery Area Designation for the Koi Nation of Northern California Formerly Known as the Lower Lake Rancheria AGENCY:

    Indian Health Service, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice advises the public that the Indian Health Service (IHS) proposes the geographic boundaries of the Service Delivery Area (SDA) for the reaffirmed Koi Nation of Northern California, formerly known as the Lower Lake Rancheria, California (Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 80 Federal Register 1942 Jan. 14, 2015). The Koi Nation's Federal recognition was reaffirmed by the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs on December 29, 2000. The Koi Nation SDA is to be comprised of Lake and Sonoma Counties in the State of California. The counties listed are designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a Purchased/Referred Care (PRC), formerly known as contract health services, SDA, for the purposes of operating a PRC program pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), Pub. L. 93-638.

    DATES:

    This notice is effective 30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register (FR).

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be mailed to Ms. Betty Gould, Regulations Officer, Indian Health Service, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 450, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Comments will be made available for public inspection at this address from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday-Friday beginning approximately two weeks after publication of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Carl Harper, Director, Office of Resource Access and Partnerships, Indian Health Service, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 360, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Telephone 301/443-2694 (This is not a toll free number).

    SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

    The IHS currently provides services under regulations in effect on September 15, 1987 and IHS republished at 42 CFR part 136, subparts A through C. Many of the newly recognized/restored/reaffirmed Tribes do not have reservations and either Congress has legislatively designated counties to serve as SDAs or the Director, IHS, exercised reasonable administrative discretion to designate SDAs to effectuate the intent of Congress for these Tribes. The Director, IHS, published notice of the establishment of SDAs in the June 21, 2007 FR Notice (72 FR 34262-01). The SDAs function as PRC SDAs for the purposes of operating a PRC program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Pub. L. 93-638. Thus, the PRC SDA list incorporates the SDAs that operate as PRC SDAs for newly recognized/restored/reaffirmed Tribes. At 42 CFR part 136 Subpart C, a PRC SDA is defined as the geographic area within which PRC will be made available by the IHS to members of an identified Indian community who reside in the area. Residence within a PRC SDA by a person who is within the scope of the Indian health program, as set forth in 42 CFR 136.12 creates no legal entitlement to PRC but only potential eligibility for services. Services needed but not available at an IHS/Tribal facility are provided under the PRC program depending on the availability of funds, the person's relative medical priority, and the actual availability and accessibility of alternate resources in accordance with the regulations.

    As applicable to the Tribes, these regulations provide that, unless otherwise designated, a PRC SDA shall consist of a county which includes all or part of a reservation and any county or counties which have a common boundary with the reservation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(6) (2014). On December 29, 2000 the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs reaffirmed the Federal recognition of the Koi Nation (Tribe), formerly known as the Lower Lake Rancheria, and the government-to-government relationship between the United States and the Tribe. The Koi Nation is located in Lake and Sonoma Counties in the State of California. After consultation with the Tribal governing body, the SDA for the Tribe was agreed upon. The purpose of this FR notice is to notify the public that the IHS now administratively designates Lake and Sonoma Counties as the Koi Nation's SDA.

    Under 42 CFR 136.23 those otherwise eligible Indians who do not reside on a reservation but reside within a PRC SDA must be either members of the Tribe or maintain close economic and social ties with the Tribe. In this case, the Tribe estimated the eligible user population to be 72 enrolled Koi Nation members who are actively involved with the Tribe.

    The Koi Nation's Tribal office is located in the city of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, in the State of California. A significant number of the Koi Nation SDA eligible user population also resides in Lake County in the State of California. There are other Federally recognized Tribes in Lake and Sonoma Counties and both counties are currently part of other Tribes' PRC SDA. The Koi Nation only seeks to provide health care services to its members who reside in Lake and Sonoma Counties.

    This notice does not contain reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to prior approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.

    Purchased/Referred Care Service Delivery Areas and Service Delivery Areas Tribe/reservation County/state Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona Pinal, AZ. Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas Polk, TX.1 Alaska Entire State.2 Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming Hot Springs, WY, Fremont, WY, Sublette, WY. Aroostook Band of Micmacs Aroostook, ME.3 Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana Daniels, MT, McCone, MT, Richland, MT, Roosevelt, MT, Sheridan, MT, Valley, MT. Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin Ashland, WI, Iron, WI. Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan Chippewa, MI. Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana Glacier, MT, Pondera, MT. Brigham City Intermountain School Health Center, Utah (4) Burns Paiute Tribe Harney, OR. California Entire State, except for the counties listed in the footnote.5 Catawba Indian Nation All Counties in SC,6 Cabarrus, NC, Cleveland, NC, Gaston, NC, Mecklenburg, NC, Rutherford, NC, Union, NC. Cayuga Nation Allegany, NY,7 Cattaraugus, NY, Chautauqua, NY, Erie, NY, Warren, PA. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota Corson, SD, Dewey, SD, Haakon, SD, Meade, SD, Perkins, SD, Potter, SD, Stanley, SD, Sully, SD, Walworth, SD, Ziebach, SD. Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana Chouteau, MT, Hill, MT, Liberty, MT. Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana St. Mary Parish, LA. Cocopah Tribe of Arizona Yuma, AZ, Imperial, CA. Coeur D'Alene Tribe Benewah, ID, Kootenai, ID, Latah, ID, Spokane, WA, Whitman, WA. Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona and California La Paz, AZ, Riverside, CA, San Bernardino, CA, Yuma, AZ. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation Flathead, MT, Lake, MT, Missoula, MT, Sanders, MT. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Klickitat, WA, Lewis, WA, Skamania, WA,8 Yakima, WA. Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon Benton, OR,9 Clackamas, OR, Lane, OR, Lincoln, OR, Linn, OR, Marion, OR, Multnomah, OR, Polk, OR, Tillamook, OR, Washington, OR, Yam Hill, OR. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation Grays Harbor, WA, Lewis, WA, Thurston, WA. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington Chelan, WA,10 Douglas, WA, Ferry, WA, Grant, WA, Lincoln, WA, Okanogan, WA, Stevens, WA. Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians Coos, OR,11 Curry, OR, Douglas, OR, Lane, OR, Lincoln, OR. Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Nevada and Utah Nevada, Juab, UT, Toole, UT. Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon Polk, OR,12 Washington, OR, Marion, OR, Yamhill, OR, Tillamook, OR, Multnomah, OR. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Umatilla, OR, Union, OR. Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon Clackamas, OR, Jefferson, OR, Linn, OR, Marion, OR, Wasco, OR. Coquille Indian Tribe Coos, OR, Curry, OR, Douglas, OR, Jackson, OR, Lane, OR. Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana Allen Parish, LA, Elton, LA.13 Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians Coos, OR,14 Deshutes, OR, Douglas, OR, Jackson, OR, Josephine, OR, Klamath, OR, Lane, OR. Cowlitz Indian Tribe Clark, WA, Cowlitz, WA, King, WA, Lewis, WA, Pierce, WA, Skamania, WA, Thurston, WA, Columbia, OR,15 Kittitas, WA, Wahkiakum, WA. Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota Brule, SD, Buffalo, SD, Hand, SD, Hughes, SD, Hyde, SD, Lyman, SD, Stanley, SD. Crow Tribe of Montana Big Horn, MT, Carbon, MT, Treasure, MT,16 Yellowstone, MT, Big Horn, WY, Sheridan, WY. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Cherokee, NC, Graham, NC, Haywood, NC, Jackson, NC, Swain, NC. Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota Moody, SD. Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin Forest, WI, Marinette, WI, Oconto, WI. Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana Blaine, MT, Phillips, MT. Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon Nevada, Malheur, OR. Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona Maricopa, AZ. Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of Arizona, California and Nevada Nevada, Mohave, AZ, San Bernardino, CA. Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona Maricopa, AZ, Pinal, AZ. Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan Antrim, MI,17 Benzie, MI, Charlevoix, MI, Grand Traverse, MI, Leelanau, MI, Manistee, MI. Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan Delta, MI, Menominee, MI. Haskell Indian Health Center Douglas, KS.18 Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation, Arizona Coconino, AZ. Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin Adams, WI,19 Clark, WI, Columbia, WI, Crawford, WI, Dane, WI, Eau Claire, WI, Houston, MN, Jackson, WI, Juneau, WI, La Crosse, WI, Marathon, WI, Monroe, WI, Sauk, WI, Shawano, WI, Vernon, WI, Wood, WI. Hoh Indian Tribe Jefferson, WA. Hopi Tribe of Arizona Apache, AZ, Coconino, AZ, Navajo, AZ. Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians Aroostook, ME.20 Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona Coconino, AZ, Mohave, AZ, Yavapai, AZ. Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska Brown, KS, Doniphan, KS, Richardson, NE. Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Clallam, WA, Jefferson, WA. Jena Band of Choctaw Indians Grand Parish, LA,21 LaSalle Parish, LA, Rapides Parish, LA. Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico Archuleta, CO, Rio Arriba, NM, Sandoval, NM. Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona Coconino, AZ, Mohave, AZ, Kane, UT. Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel Reservation Pend Oreille, WA, Spokane, WA. Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico Sandoval, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan Baraga, MI, Houghton, MI, Ontonagon, MI. Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas Maverick, TX.22 Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas Brown, KS, Jackson, KS. Klamath Tribes Klamath, OR.23 Koi Nation of Northern California (formerly known as Lower Lake Rancheria, California) Lake, CA, Sonoma, CA.24 Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Boundary, ID. Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Sawyer, WI. Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin Iron, WI, Oneida, WI, Vilas, WI. Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan Gogebic, MI. Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan Kent, MI,25 Muskegon, MI, Newaygo, MI, Oceana, MI, Ottawa, MI, Manistee, MI, Mason, MI, Wexford, MI, Lake, MI. Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan Alcona, MI,25 Alger, MI, Alpena, MI, Antrim, MI, Benzie, MI, Charlevoix, MI, Cheboygan, MI, Chippewa, MI, Crawford, MI, Delta, MI, Emmet, MI, Grand Traverse, MI, Iosco, MI, Kalkaska, MI, Leelanau, MI, Luce, MI, Mackinac, MI, Manistee, MI, Missaukee, MI, Montmorency, MI, Ogemaw, MI, Oscoda, MI, Otsego, MI, Presque Isle, MI, Schoolcraft, MI, Roscommon, MI, Wexford, MI. Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota Brule, SD, Buffalo, SD, Hughes, SD, Lyman, SD, Stanley, SD. Lower Elwha Tribal Community Clallam, WA. Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota Redwood, MN, Renville, MN. Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation Whatcom, WA. Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation Clallam, WA. Mashantucket Pequot Tribe New London, CT.26 Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Barnstable, MA, Bristol, MA, Norfolk, MA, Plymouth, MA, Suffolk, MA.27 Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan Allegan, MI,28 Barry, MI, Kalamazoo, MI, Kent, MI, Ottawa, MI. Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin Langlade, WI, Menominee, WI, Oconto, WI, Shawano, WI. Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico Chaves, NM, Lincoln, NM, Otero, NM. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians Broward, FL, Collier, FL, Miami-Dade, FL, Hendry, FL. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) Itasca, MN, Koochiching, MN, St. Louis, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota Fond du Lac Band Carlton, MN, St. Louis, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota Grand Portage Band Cook, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota Leech Lake Band Beltrami, MN, Cass, MN, Hubbard, MN, Itasca, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota Mille Lacs Band Aitkin, MN, Kanebec, MN, Mille Lacs, MN, Pine, MN. Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota White Earth Band Becker, MN, Clearwater, MN, Mahnomen, MN, Norman, MN, Polk, MN. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Attala, MS, Jasper, MS,29 Jones, MS, Kemper, MS, Leake, MS, Neshoba, MS, Newton, MS, Noxubee, MS,29 Scott, MS,30 Winston, MS. Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut Fairfield, CT, Hartford, CT, Litchfield, CT, Middlesex, CT, New Haven, CT, New London, CT, Tolland, CT, Windham, CT. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe King, WA, Pierce, WA. Narragansett Indian Tribe Washington, RI.31 Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah Apache, AZ, Bernalillo, NM, Cibola, NM, Coconino, AZ, Kane, UT, McKinley, NM, Montezuma, CO, Navajo, AZ, Rio Arriba, NM, Sandoval, NM, San Juan, NM, San Juan, UT, Socorro, NM, Valencia, NM. Nevada Entire State.32 Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater, ID, Idaho, ID, Latah, ID, Lewis, ID, Nez Perce, ID. Nisqually Indian Tribe Pierce, WA, Thurston, WA. Nooksack Indian Tribe Whatcom, WA. Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana Big Horn, MT, Carter, MT,33 Rosebud, MT. Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation Box Elder, UT.34 Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan Allegan, MI,35 Barry, MI, Branch, MI, Calhoun, MI, Kalamazoo, MI, Kent, MI, Ottawa, MI. Oglala Sioux Tribe Bennett, SD, Cherry, NE, Custer, SD, Dawes, NE, Fall River, SD, Jackson, SD,36 Mellete, SD, Pennington, SD, Shannon, SD, Sheridan, NE, Todd, SD. Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico Rio Arriba, NM. Oklahoma Entire State.37 Omaha Tribe of Nebraska Burt, NE, Cuming, NE, Monona, IA, Thurston, NE, Wayne, NE. Oneida Nation of New York Chenango, NY, Cortland, NY, Herkimer, NY, Madison, NY, Oneida, NY, Onondaga, NY. Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin Brown, WI, Outagamie, WI. Onondaga Nation Onondaga, NY. Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Iron, UT,38 Millard, UT, Sevier, UT, Washington, UT. Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona Pima, AZ.39 Passamaquoddy Tribe Aroostook, ME,40 41 Washington, ME. Penobscot Nation Aroostook, ME,40 Penobscot, ME. Poarch Band of Creeks Baldwin, AL,42 Elmore, AL, Escambia, AL, Mobile, AL, Monroe, AL, Escambia, FL. Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana Allegan, MI,43 Berrien, MI, Cass, MI, Elkhart, IN, Kosciusko, IN, La Porte, IN, Marshall, IN, St. Joseph, IN, Starke, IN, Van Buren, MI. Ponca Tribe of Nebraska Boyd, NE,44 Burt, NE, Charles Mix, SD, Douglas, NE, Hall, NE, Holt, NE, Knox, NE, Lancaster, NE, Madison, NE, Platte, NE, Pottawattomie, IA, Sarpy, NE, Stanton, NE, Wayne, NE, Woodbury, IA. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Kitsap, WA. Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation Jackson, KS. Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota Goodhue, MN. Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico Cibola, NM. Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico Sandoval, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico Bernalillo, NM, Torrance, NM, Valencia, NM. Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico Sandoval, NM. Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico Bernalillo, NM, Cibola, NM, Sandoval, NM, Valencia, NM. Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico Taos, NM. Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico Rio Arriba, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico Sandoval, NM. Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico Los Alamos, NM, Rio Arriba, NM, Sandoval, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico Bernalillo, NM, Sandoval, NM. Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico Sandoval, NM. Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico Los Alamos, NM, Sandoval, NM, Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico Colfax, NM, Taos, NM. Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico Santa Fe, NM. Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico Sandoval, NM. Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation King, WA, Pierce, WA, Thurston, WA. Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California and Arizona Yuma, AZ, Imperial, CA. Quileute Tribe of the Quileute Reservation Clallam, WA, Jefferson, WA. Quinault Indian Nation Grays Harbor, WA, Jefferson, WA. Rapid City, South Dakota Pennington, SD.45 Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Bayfield, WI. Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota Beltrami, MN, Clearwater, MN, Koochiching, MN, Lake of the Woods, MN, Marshall, MN, Pennington, MN, Polk, MN, Roseau, MN. Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota Bennett, SD, Cherry, NE, Gregory, SD, Lyman, SD, Mellette, SD, Todd, SD, Tripp, SD. Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska Brown, KS, Richardson, NE. Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa Tama, IA. Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan Arenac, MI,46 Clare, MI, Isabella, MI, Midland, MI, Missaukee, MI. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe Franklin, NY, St. Lawrence, NY. Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona Maricopa, AZ. Samish Indian Tribe Nation Clallam, WA,47 Island, WA, Jefferson, WA, King, WA, Kitsap, WA, Pierce, WA, San Juan, WA, Skagit, WA, Snohomish, WA, Whatcom, WA. San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona Apache, AZ, Cochise, AZ, Gila, AZ, Graham, AZ, Greenlee, AZ, Pinal, AZ. San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona Coconino, AZ, San Juan, UT. Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska Bon Homme, SD, Knox, NE. Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe Snohomish, WA, Skagit, WA. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan Alger, MI,48 Chippewa, MI, Delta, MI, Luce, MI, Mackinac, MI, Marquette, MI, Schoolcraft, MI. Seminole Tribe of Florida Broward, FL, Collier, FL, Miami-Dade, FL, Glades, FL, Hendry, FL. Seneca Nation of Indians Allegany, NY, Cattaraugus, NY, Chautauqua, NY, Erie, NY, Warren, PA. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota Scott, MN. Shinnecock Indian Nation Nassau, NY,49 Suffolk, NY. Shoalwater Bay Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation Pacific, WA. Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming Hot Springs, WY, Fremont, WY, Sublette, WY. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation Bannock, ID, Bingham, ID, Caribou, ID, Lemhi, ID,50 Power, ID. Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada Nevada, Owyhee, ID. Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota Codington, SD, Day, SD, Grant, SD, Marshall, SD, Richland, ND, Roberts, SD, Sargent, ND, Traverse, MN. Skokomish Indian Tribe Mason, WA. Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians of Utah Tooele, UT. Snoqualmie Indian Tribe King, WA,51 Snohomish, WA, Pierce, WA, Island, WA, Mason, WA. Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin Forest, WI. Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado Archuleta, CO, La Plata, CO, Montezuma, CO, Rio Arriba, NM, San Juan, NM. Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota Benson, ND, Eddy, ND, Nelson, ND, Ramsey, ND. Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation Ferry, WA, Lincoln, WA, Stevens, WA. Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation Mason, WA. St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Barron, WI, Burnett, WI, Pine, MN, Polk, WI, Washburn, WI. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota Adams, ND, Campbell, SD, Corson, SD, Dewey, SD, Emmons, ND, Grant, ND, Morton, ND, Perkins, SD, Sioux, ND, Walworth, SD, Ziebach, SD. Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington Snohomish, WA. Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin Menominee, WI, Shawano, WI. Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation Kitsap, WA. Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Skagit, WA. Tejon Indian Tribe Kern, CA.52 Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota Dunn, ND, Mercer, ND, McKenzie, ND, McLean, ND, Mountrail, ND, Ward, ND. Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona Maricopa, AZ, Pima, AZ, Pinal, AZ. Tonawanda Band of Seneca Genesee, NY, Erie, NY, Niagara, NY. Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona Gila, AZ. Trenton Service Unit, North Dakota and Montana Divide, ND,53 McKenzie, ND, Williams, ND, Richland, MT, Roosevelt, MT, Sheridan, MT. Tulalip Tribes of Washington Snohomish, WA. Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe Avoyelles, LA, Rapides, LA.54 Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota Rolette, ND. Tuscarora Nation Niagara, NY. Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota Chippewa, MN, Yellow Medicine, MN. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe Skagit, WA. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah Carbon, UT, Daggett, UT, Duchesne, UT, Emery, UT, Grand, UT, Rio Blanco, CO, Summit, UT, Uintah, UT, Utah, UT, Wasatch, UT. Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah Apache, AZ, La Plata, CO, Montezuma, CO, San Juan, NM, San Juan, UT. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) Dukes, MA.55 Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California Nevada, California except for the counties listed in footnote. White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona Apache, AZ, Coconino, AZ, Gila, AZ, Graham, AZ, Greenlee, AZ, Navajo, AZ. Wilton Rancheria, California Sacramento, CA.56 Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Dakota, NE, Dixon, NE, Monona, IA, Thurston, NE, Wayne, NE, Woodbury, IA. Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota Bon Homme, SD, Boyd, NE, Charles Mix, SD, Douglas, SD, Gregory, SD, Hutchinson, SD, Knox, NE. Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona Yavapai, AZ. Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Yavapai, AZ. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas El Paso, TX.1 Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico Apache, AZ, Cibola, NM, McKinley, NM, Valencia, NM 1 Public Law 100-89, Restoration Act for Ysleta Del Sur and Alabama and Coushatta Tribes of Texas establishes service areas for “members of the Tribe” by sections 101(3) and 105(a) for the Pueblo and sections 201(3) and 206(a) respectively. 2 Entire State of Alaska is included as a CHSDA by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(1)). 3 Aroostook Band of Micmacs was recognized by Congress on November 26, 1991 through the Aroostook Band of Micmac Settlement Act. Aroostook County, ME, was defined as the SDA. 4 Special programs have been established by Congress irrespective of the eligibility regulations. Eligibility for services at these facilities is based on the legislative history of the appropriation of funds for the particular facility rather than the eligibility regulations. Historically services have been provided at Brigham City Intermountain School Health Center, Utah (Public Law 88-358). 5 Entire State of California, excluding the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Marin, Orange, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Kern, Merced, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Solano, Stanislaus, and Ventura, is designated a CHSDA (25 U.S.C. 1680). 6 The counties were recognized after the January 1984 CHSDA FRN was published, in accordance with Public Law 103-116, Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina Land Claims Settlement Act of 1993, dated October 27, 1993. 7 There is no reservation for the Cayuga Nation; the service delivery area consists of those counties identified by the Cayuga Nation. 8 Skamania County, WA, has historically been a part of the Yakama Service Unit population since 1979. 9 In order to carry out the Congressional intent of the Siletz Restoration Act, Public Law 95-195, as expressed in H. Report No. 95-623, at page 4, members of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon residing in these counties are eligible for contract health services. 10 Chelan County, WA, has historically been a part of the Colville Service Unit population since 1970. 11 Pursuant to Public Law 98-481 (H. Rept. No. 98-904), Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Restoration Act, members of the Tribe residing in these counties were specified as eligible for Federal services and benefits without regard to the existence of a Federal Indian reservation. 12 The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon were recognized by Public Law 98-165 which was signed into law on November 22, 1983, and provides for eligibility in these six counties without regard to the existence of a reservation. 13 The CHSDA for the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana was expanded administratively by the Director, IHS, through regulation (42 CFR 136.22(6)) to include city limits of Elton, LA. 14 Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians recognized by Public Law 97-391, signed into law on December 29, 1983. House Rept. No. 97-862 designates Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine Counties as a service area without regard to the existence of a reservation. The IHS later administratively expanded the CHSDA to include the counties of Coos, OR, Deshutes, OR, Klamath, OR, and Lane, OR. 15 The Cowlitz Indian Tribe was recognized in July 2002 as documented at 67 FR 46329, July 12, 2002. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. The CHSDA was administratively expanded to included Columbia County, OR, Kittitas, WA, and Wahkiakum County, WA, as published at 67884 FR December 21, 2009. 16 Treasure County, MT, has historically been a part of the Crow Service Unit population. 17 The counties listed have historically been a part of the Grand Traverse Service Unit population since 1980. 18 Haskell Indian Health Center has historically been a part of Kansas Service Unit since 1979. Special programs have been established by Congress irrespective of the eligibility regulations. Eligibility for services at these facilities is based on the legislative history of the appropriation of funds for the particular facility rather than the eligibility regulations. Historically services have been provided at Haskell Indian Health Center (H. Rept. No. 95-392). 19 CHSDA counties for the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin were designated by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(5)). Dane County, WI, was added to the reservation by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1986. 20 Public Law 97-428 provides that any member of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians in or around the Town of Houlton shall be eligible without regard to existence of a reservation. 21 The Jena Band of Choctaw Indian was Federally acknowledged as documented at 60 FR 28480, May 31, 1995. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 22 Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, formerly known as the Texas Band of Kickapoo, was recognized by Public Law 97-429, signed into law on January 8, 1983. The Act provides for eligibility for Kickapoo Tribal members residing in Maverick County without regard to the existence of a reservation. 23 The Klamath Indian Tribe Restoration Act (Pub. L. 99-398, Sec. 2(2)) states that for the purpose of Federal services and benefits “members of the tribe residing in Klamath County shall be deemed to be residing in or near a reservation”. 24 The Koi Nation of Northern California, formerly known as the Lower Lake Rancheria, was reaffirmed by the Secretary of the Bureau of Indian Affairs on December 29, 2000. The counties listed are designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a PRC SDA, for the purposes of operating a PRC program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 25 The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Act recognized the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians. Pursuant to Public Law 103-324, Sec.4 (b) the counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 26 Mashantucket Pequot Indian Claims Settlement Act, Public Law 98-134, signed into law on October 18, 1983, provides a reservation for the Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe in New London County, CT. 27 The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe was recognized in February 2007, as documented at 72 FR 8007, February 22, 2007. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 28 The Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan was recognized in October 1998, as documented at 63 FR 56936, October 23, 1998. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 29 Members of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians residing in Jasper and Noxubee Counties, MS, are eligible for contract health services; these two counties were inadvertently omitted from 42 CFR 136.22. 30 Scott County, MS, has historically been a part of the Choctaw Service Unit population since 1970. 31 The Narragansett Indian Tribe was recognized by Public Law 95-395, signed into law September 30, 1978. Lands in Washington County, RI, are now Federally restricted and the Bureau of Indian Affairs considers them as the Narragansett Indian Reservation. 32 Entire State of Nevada is included as a CHSDA by regulation (42 CFR 136.22 (a)(2)). 33 Carter County, MT, has historically been a part of the Northern Cheyenne Service Unit population since 1979. 34 Land of Box Elder County, Utah, was taken into trust for the Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation in 1986. 35 The Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan, formerly known as the Huron Band of Potawatomi, Inc., was recognized in December 1995, as documented at 60 FR 66315, December 21, 1995. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 36 Washabaugh County, SD, merged and became part of Jackson County, SD, in 1983; both were/are CHSA counties for the Oglala Sioux Tribe. 37 Entire State of Oklahoma is included as a CHSDA by regulation (42 CFR 136.22 (a)(3)). 38 Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Restoration Act, Public Law 96-227, provides for the extension of services for the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah to these four counties without regard to the existence of a reservation. 39 Legislative history (H.R. Report No. 95-1021) to Public Law 95-375, Extension of Federal Benefits to Pascua Yaqui Indians, Arizona, expresses congressional intent that lands conveyed to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona pursuant to Act of October 8, 1964. (Pub. L. 88-350) shall be deemed a Federal Indian Reservation. 40 The Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-420; H. Rept. 96-1353) includes the intent of Congress to fund and provide contract health services to the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Penobscot Nation. 41 The Passamaquoddy Tribe has two reservations. The PRC SDA for the Passamaquoddy Tribe of Indian Township, ME, is Aroostook County, ME, and Washington County, ME. The PRC SDA for the Passamaquoddy Tribe of Pleasant Point, ME, is Washington County, ME, south of State Route. 42 Counties in the Service Unit designated by Congress for the Poarch Band of Creek Indians (see H. Rept. 98-886, June 29, 1984; Cong. Record, October 10, 1984, Pg. H11929). 43 Public Law 103-323 restored Federal recognition to the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana, in 1994 and identified counties to serve as the SDA. 44 The Ponca Restoration Act, Public Law 101-484, recognized members of the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska in Boyd, Douglas, Knox, Madison or Lancaster counties of Nebraska or Charles Mix county of South Dakota as residing on or near a reservation. Public Law 104-109 made technical corrections to laws relating to Native Americans and added Burt, Hall, Holt, Platte, Sarpy, Stanton, and Wayne counties of Nebraska and Pottawatomie and Woodbury counties of Iowa to the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska SDA. 45 Special programs have been established by Congress irrespective of the eligibility regulations. Eligibility for services at these facilities is based on the legislative history of the appropriation of funds for the particular facility, rather than the eligibility regulations. Historically services have been provided at Rapid City (S. Rept. No. 1154, FY 1967 Interior Approp. 89th Cong. 2d Sess.). 46 Historically part of Isabella Reservation Area for the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan and the Eastern Michigan Service Unit population since 1979. 47 The Samish Indian Tribe Nation was Federally acknowledged in April 1996 as documented at 61 FR 15825, April 9, 1996. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 48 CHSDA counties for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan, were designated by regulation (42 CFR 136.22(a)(4)). 49 The Shinnecock Indian Nation was Federally acknowledged in June 2010 as documented at 75 FR 34760, June 18, 2010. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 50 Lemhi County, ID, has historically been a part of the Fort Hall Service Unit population since 1979. 51 The Snoqualmie Indian Tribe was Federally acknowledged in August 1997 as documented at 62 FR 45864, August 29, 1997. The counties listed were designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 52 On December 30, 2011 the Office of Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs reaffirmed the Federal recognition of the Tejon Indian Tribe. The county listed was designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA, for the purposes of operating a CHS program pursuant to the ISDEAA, Public Law 93-638. 53 The Secretary acting through the Service is directed to provide contract health services to Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians that reside in Trenton Service Unit, North Dakota and Montana, in Divide, Mackenzie, and Williams counties in the state of North Dakota and the adjoining counties of Richland, Roosevelt, and Sheridan in the state of Montana (Sec. 815, Pub. L. 94-437). 54 Rapides County, LA, has historically been a part of the Tunica Biloxi Service Unit population since 1982. 55 According to Public Law 100-95, Sec. 12, members of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) residing on Martha's Vineyard are deemed to be living on or near an Indian reservation for the purposes of eligibility for Federal services. 56 The Wilton Rancheria, California had Federal recognition restored in July 2009 as documented at 74 FR 33468, July 13, 2009. Sacramento County, CA, was designated administratively as the SDA, to function as a CHSDA. Sacramento County was not covered when Congress originally established the State of California as a CHSDA excluding certain counties including Sacramento County (25 U.S.C. 1680). Dated: July 30, 2015. Robert G. McSwain, Deputy Director, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19467 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Eye Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Eye Council.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Advisory Eye Council.

    Date: October 8, 2015.

    Open: 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: Following opening remarks by the Director, NEI, there will be presentations by the staff of the Institute and discussions concerning Institute programs.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Terrace Level Conference Rooms, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Closed: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Terrace Level Conference Rooms, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Anne E. Schaffner, Ph.D., Chief, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane Suite 1300, MSC 9300, Bethesda, MD 20892-9300, (301) 451-2020, [email protected]

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: www.nei.nih.gov, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 4, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19450 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute: Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Cancer Detection, Diagnostic and Treatment Technologies for Global Health.

    Date: August 18, 2015.

    Time: 2 p.m. to 3 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W030, Rockville, MD 20850 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Gerard Lacourciere, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Technology and Contract Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W246, Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-6374, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NCI Spore Review.

    Date: September 29-30, 2015.

    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Washington DC/Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Wlodek Lopaczynski, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Programs Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W608, Rockville, MD 20892, 240-276-6458, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Omnibus SEP-10.

    Date: October 7-8, 2015.

    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Shakeel Ahmad, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Programs Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W122, Bethesda, MD 20892-8328, 240-276-6349, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 4, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19438 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Workshop on Alternative Approaches for Identifying Acute Systemic Toxicity: Moving From Research to Regulatory Testing; Notice of Public Meeting; Registration Information SUMMARY:

    The National Toxicology Program (NTP) Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) announces the workshop “Alternative Approaches for Identifying Acute Systemic Toxicity: Moving from Research to Regulatory Testing.” Workshop attendees will discuss the state of the science of alternative approaches for identifying acute systemic toxicity and explore ways to facilitate their implementation.

    DATES:

    Meeting: September 24-25, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).

    Meeting Registration: Deadline is September 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting Location: Porter Neuroscience Conference Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Meeting Web page: The preliminary agenda, registration, and other meeting materials are at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/atwksp-2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Warren S. Casey, Director, NICEATM; email: [email protected]; telephone: (919) 316-4729.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Acute systemic toxicity tests, which evaluate the propensity of a substance to produce lethality when administered orally, dermally, or by inhalation, are the most commonly performed type of safety test worldwide. This workshop will explore and discuss alternative approaches that could replace, reduce, or refine the use of animals for identifying chemicals that may cause acute systemic toxicity.

    During the workshop, participants will (1) review the regulatory guidelines to define when and how acute systemic toxicity data are used; (2) review the science of alternative approaches for identifying acute systemic toxicity, including mechanism-based models, in vitro and in silico approaches, and lower vertebrate and invertebrate models; and (3) identify mechanisms of acute toxicity for promoting development of adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) for acute toxicity. The workshop steering committee is comprised of members from government and nongovernment stakeholder organizations including NICEATM, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals International Science Consortium Ltd., The Dow Chemical Company, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Rutgers University.

    Preliminary Agenda and Other Meeting Information

    A preliminary agenda and additional information are available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/atwksp-2015.

    Meeting and Registration

    This meeting is open to the public, free of charge, with attendance limited only by available meeting space. Individuals who plan to attend should register at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/atwksp-2015 by September 11, 2015, to facilitate planning. Interested individuals are encouraged to visit this Web page to stay abreast of the most current information about the meeting.

    Visitor and security information for visitors to NIH is available at http://www.nih.gov/about/visitor/index.htm. Individuals with disabilities who need accommodation to participate in this event should contact Dr. Elizabeth Maull at telephone: (919) 316-4668 or email: [email protected] TTY users should contact the Federal TTY Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Requests should be made at least five business days in advance of the event.

    Background Information on NICEATM

    NICEATM conducts data analyses, workshops, independent validation studies, and other activities to assess new, revised, and alternative test methods and strategies. NICEATM also provides support for the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM). The ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 285l-3) provides authority for ICCVAM and NICEATM in the development of alternative test methods. Information about NICEATM and ICCVAM is found at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/niceatm and http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/iccvam, respectively.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. John R. Bucher, Associate Director, National Toxicology Program.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19379 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given for the meeting of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention National Advisory Council (CSAP NAC) on August 26, 2015.

    The Council was established to advise the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); the Administrator, SAMHSA; and Center Director, CSAP concerning matters relating to the activities carried out by and through the Center and the policies respecting such activities.

    The meeting will be open to the public and will include discussion of the alignment of substance abuse and mental illness prevention within the context of overall healthcare, and CSAP program developments.

    The meeting will be held in Rockville, Maryland. Attendance by the public will be limited to the space available. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the Council. Written submissions should be forwarded to the contact person on or before one week prior to the meeting. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled at the conclusion of the meeting. Individuals interested in making oral presentations are encouraged to notify the contact on or before one week prior to the meeting. Five minutes will be allotted for each presentation.

    To attend onsite, submit written or brief oral comments, or request special accommodations for persons with disabilities, please register at the SAMHSA Committees' Web site, http://nac.samhsa.gov/Registration/meetingsRegistration.aspx, or communicate with the CSAP Council's Designated Federal Officer (see contact information below).

    Substantive program information may be obtained after the meeting by accessing the SAMHSA Committee Web site, http://nac.samhsa.gov/, or by contacting the Designated Federal Officer.

    Committee Name: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, National Advisory Council.

    Date/Time/Type: August 26, 2015, from 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. EDT: (Open).

    Place: SAMHSA, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Great Falls Conference Room (Lobby Level), Rockville, MD 20857, Adobe Connect Webcast: https://samhsa-csap.adobeconnect.com/nac/.

    Contact: Matthew J. Aumen, Designated Federal Officer, SAMHSA CSAP NAC, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: 240-276-2419, Fax: 240-276-2430, Email: [email protected]

    Cathy J. Friedman, Public Health Analyst, SAMHSA.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19415 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) National Advisory Council will meet on August 12, 2015, 2 p.m.-3 p.m., via teleconference.

    The meeting will include the review, discussion, and evaluation of grant applications reviewed by the Initial Review Group, and involve an examination of confidential financial and business information as well as personal information concerning the applicants. Therefore, these meetings will be closed to the public as determined by the SAMHSA Administrator, in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (c)(6) and (c)(9)(B); and 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Section 10(d).

    Committee Name: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; Center for Substance Abuse Prevention National Advisory Council.

    Date/Time/Type: August 12, 2015 2 p.m.-3 p..m. (CLOSED).

    Place: SAMHSA Building, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857.

    Contact: Matthew J. Aumen, Designated Federal Officer, SAMHSA/CSAP National Advisory Council, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Room 4-1068, Rockville, MD 20857, Email: [email protected].

    Cathy J. Friedman, Public Health Analyst, SAMHSA.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19416 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Advisory Committee for Women's Services (ACWS); Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Advisory Committee for Women's Services (ACWS) on August 26, 2015.

    The meeting will include discussions on behavioral health for Pregnant and Postpartum Women (PPW) and their families; disparities in behavioral health services for women; and a conversation with the SAMHSA Administrator.

    The meeting is open to the public and will be held at SAMHSA, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857, in the VTC Room. Attendance by the public will be limited to space available. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions should be forwarded to the contact person (below) on or before August 14, 2015. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled at the conclusion of the meeting. Individuals interested in making oral presentations are encouraged to notify the contact person on or before August 14, 2015. Five minutes will be allotted for each presentation.

    The meeting may be accesed via telephone. To attend on site, obtain the call-in number and access code, submit written or brief oral comments, or request special accommodations for persons with disabilities, please register on-line at http://nac.samhsa.gov/Registration/meetingsRegistration.aspx, or communicate with SAMHSA's Designated Federal Officer, Ms. Nadine Benton (see contact information below).

    Substantive meeting information and a roster of Committee members may be obtained either by accessing the SAMHSA Committees' Web site http://www.samhsa.gov/about-us/advisory-councils/advisory-committee-women%E2%80%99s-services-awcs, or by contacting Ms. Benton.

    Committee Name: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; Advisory Committee for Women's Services (ACWS).

    Date/Time/Type: Wednesday, August 26, 2015, from: 1 p.m. to 4:15 p.m. EDT.

    Open:

    Place: SAMHSA, 1 Choke Cherry Road, SAMHSA, Rock Creek, VTC Room, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Conference Number: 800-369-1956, Passcode: ACWS.

    Contact: Nadine Benton, Designated Federal Official, SAMHSA's Advisory Committee for Women's Services, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, Maryland 20857 Telephone: (240) 276-0127, Fax: (240) 276-2252, Email: [email protected].

    Cathy J. Friedman, Public Health Analyst, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19417 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4223-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002] Texas; Amendment No. 10 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-4223-DR), dated May 29, 2015, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 21, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 29, 2015.

    Red River County for Individual Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
    W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19491 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4231-DR: Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002] New Jersey; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-4231-DR), dated July 22, 2015, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 22, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated July 22, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of New Jersey resulting from a severe storm on June 23, 2015, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of New Jersey.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Seamus K. Leary, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the State of New Jersey have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Gloucester Counties for Public Assistance.

    All areas within the State of New Jersey are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19489 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4223-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002] Texas; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-4223-DR), dated May 29, 2015, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 17, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 29, 2015.

    Shelby County for Individual Assistance.

    Hood, Madison, and Wharton Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
    W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19493 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4228-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002] Louisiana; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4228-DR), dated July 13, 2015, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 21, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of July 13, 2015.

    Rapides Parish for Public Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
    W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19488 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4223-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002] Texas; Amendment No. 9 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-4223-DR), dated May 29, 2015, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 21, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that the incident period is now May 4, 2015, through and including June 22, 2015.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19494 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4223-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002] Texas; Amendment No. 11 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-4223-DR), dated May 29, 2015, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 23, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 29, 2015.

    Austin, Brown, Delta, DeWitt, Gonzales, Hopkins, Jack, Jones, Orange, Robertson, San Augustine, Starr, Tarrant, Throckmorton, and Waller Counties for Public Assistance.

    Ellis, Red River, and Wichita Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
    W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19490 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2015-0023] The Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council AGENCY:

    National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Quarterly Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council membership update.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the establishment of the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC) in a Federal Register Notice (71 FR 14930-14933) dated March 24, 2006, which identified the purpose of CIPAC, as well as its membership. This notice provides: (i) quarterly CIPAC membership updates; (ii) instructions on how the public can obtain the CIPAC membership roster and other information on the council; and (iii) information on recently completed CIPAC meetings.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Larry May, Alternate Designated Federal Officer, Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council, Sector Outreach and Programs Division, Office of Infrastructure Protection, National Protection and Programs Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, Mail Stop 0607, Arlington, VA 20598-0607; telephone: (703) 603-5070; email: [email protected].

    Responsible DHS Official: Larry May, Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the CIPAC.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose and Activity: The CIPAC facilitates interaction between government officials and representatives of the community of owners and/or operators for each of the critical infrastructure sectors defined by Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 21 and identified in National Infrastructure Protection Plan 2013: Partnering for Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience. The activities covered by the CIPAC include: planning; coordinating among government and critical infrastructure owner and operator partners; implementing security and resilience program initiatives; conducting operational activities related to critical infrastructure security and resilience measures, incident response and recovery; reconstituting critical infrastructure assets and systems from manmade and naturally occurring events; sharing threat, vulnerability, risk mitigation, and business continuity information; and distributing best practices and lessons learned at the classified and unclassified levels.

    Organizational Structure: CIPAC members are organized into 16 critical infrastructure sectors. These sectors have a Government Coordinating Council (GCC) whose membership includes: (i) a lead federal agency that is defined as the Sector-Specific Agency (SSA); (ii) all relevant federal, state, local, tribal, and/or territorial government agencies (or their representative bodies) whose mission interests also involve the scope of the CIPAC activities for that particular sector; and (iii) a Sector Coordinating Council (SCC), where applicable, whose membership includes critical infrastructure owners and/or operators or their representative trade associations.

    CIPAC Membership: CIPAC Membership may include:

    (i) Critical Infrastructure owner and operator members of a DHS-recognized SCC, including their representative trade associations or equivalent organization members of a SCC as determined by the SCC.

    (ii) Federal, state, local, and tribal governmental entities comprising the members of the GCC for each sector, including their representative organizations; members of the State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Government Coordinating Council; and representatives of other federal agencies with responsibility for critical infrastructure activities.

    CIPAC membership is organizational. Multiple individuals may participate in CIPAC activities on behalf of a member organization.

    CIPAC Membership Roster and Council Information: The current roster of CIPAC members is published on the CIPAC Web site (http://www.dhs.gov/cipac) and is updated as the CIPAC membership changes. Members of the public may visit the CIPAC Web site at any time to view current CIPAC membership, as well as the current and historic lists of CIPAC meetings and agendas.

    Dated: July 31, 2015. Larry May, Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the CIPAC.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19393 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9P-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2015-0041] Office for Interoperability and Compatibility Seeks Nominations for the Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program (P25 CAP) Advisory Panel AGENCY:

    Science and Technology Directorate, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is seeking nominations and expressions of interest for membership on the Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program Advisory Panel (P25 CAP AP). The activities of the P25 CAP AP are expected to commence in fall 2015.

    P25 is a standard which enables interoperability among digital two-way land mobile radio communications products created by and for public safety professionals. P25 CAP is a formal, independent process, created by DHS and operated in collaboration with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), for ensuring that communications equipment that is declared by the supplier to be P25 compliant, in fact, is tested against the standards with publicly published results. The P25 CAP AP would provide a resource by which DHS could gain insight into the collective interest of organizations that procure P25-compliant equipment and a resource in DHS's continuing to establish the policies of the P25 CAP along with assisting the DHS Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) in the administration of the Program.

    DATES:

    All responses must be received within 30 days from the date of this notice at the address listed below.

    ADDRESSES:

    Expressions of interest and nominations should be submitted to [email protected].

    • Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and DHS-2015-0041, the docket number for this action.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Merrill, Director, Office for Interoperability and Compatibility, Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, 202-254-5604 (O), [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    TIA-102/Project 25 (P25) is a standards development process for the design, manufacture, and evaluation of interoperable digital two-way land mobile radio communications products created by and for public safety professionals. The goal of P25 is to specify formal standards for interfaces and features between the various components of a land mobile radio system commonly used by public safety agencies in portable handheld and mobile vehicle-mounted devices. The P25 standard enables interoperability among different suppliers' products.

    P25 CAP was developed by DHS and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to test equipment designed to comply with P25 standards. The program provides public safety agencies with evidence that the communications equipment they are purchasing is tested against and complies with the P25 standards for performance, conformance, and interoperability.

    P25 CAP is a voluntary system that provides a mechanism for the recognition of testing laboratories based on internationally accepted standards. It identifies competent P25 CAP testing laboratories for DHS-recognition through assessments by DHS-authorized accreditation bodies and promotes the acceptance of compliant test results from these laboratories.

    As a voluntary program, P25 CAP allows suppliers to publicly attest to their products' compliance with a selected group of requirements through Summary Test Report (STR) and Supplier's Declaration of Compliance (SDOC) documents based on the Detailed Test Report (DTR) from the DHS-recognized laboratory (ies) that performed the product testing. In turn, P25 CAP makes these documents available to the first response community to inform their purchasing decisions via the FirstResponder.gov/P25CAP Web site.

    Membership

    The Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) of the DHS is forming the P25 CAP Advisory Panel to provide S&T with the views of active local, state, tribal, territorial and Federal government officials who use or whose offices use portable handheld and mobile vehicle-mounted radios. Those government officials selected to participate in the P25 CAP AP will be selected based on their experience with the management and procurement of land mobile radio systems or knowledge of conformity assessment programs and methods. OIC will select candidates in light of the desire to balance viewpoints required to effectively address P25 CAP issues under consideration. OIC is particularly interested in receiving nominations and expressions of interest from individuals in the following categories:

    • State, tribal, territorial, or local government agencies and organizations with expertise in communications issues and technologies.

    • Federal government agencies with expertise in communications or homeland security matters.

    While OIC can call for a meeting of the P25 CAP AP as it deems necessary and appropriate, for member commitment and planning purposes, it is anticipated that the P25 CAP AP will meet approximately 3-4 times annually in their role of providing guidance and support to the P25 CAP.

    Those selected to serve on the P25 CAP AP will be required to sign a gratuitous services agreement and will not be paid or reimbursed for their participation; however, DHS S&T will reimburse the travel expenses associated with the participation of non-Federal members in accordance with Federal Travel Regulations. OIC reserves the right to select primary and alternate members to the P25 CAP AP for terms appropriate for the accomplishment of the Board's mission. Members serve at the pleasure of the OIC Director.

    Registered lobbyists pursuant to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 are not eligible for membership on the P25 CAP AP and will not be considered.

    Roles and Responsibilities

    The duties of the P25 CAP AP will include providing recommendations of its individual members to OIC regarding actions and steps OIC could take to promote the P25 CAP. The duties of the P25 CAP AP may include but are not limited to its members reviewing, commenting on, and advising on:

    a. The laboratory component of the P25 CAP under established, documented laboratory recognition guidelines.

    b. Proposed Compliance Assessment Bulletins (CABs).

    c. Proposed updates to previously approved CABs, as Notices of Proposed CABs, to enable comment and input on the proposed CAB modifications.

    d. OIC updates to existing test documents or establishing new test documents for new types of P25 equipment.

    e. Best practices associated with improvement of the policies and procedures by which the P25 CAP operates.

    f. Existing test documents including but not limited to Supplier Declarations of Compliance (SDOCs) and Summary Test Reports (STRs) posted on the FirstResponder.gov/P25CAP Web site.

    g. Proposed P25 user input for improving functionality through the standards-making process.

    Nominations/Expressions of Interest Procedures and Deadline

    Nominations and expressions of interest shall be received by OIC no later than 30 days from the date of this notice at the address listed above ([email protected]). Nominations and expressions of interest received after this date shall not be considered. Each nomination and expression of interest must provide the following information as part of the submission:

    • A cover letter that highlights a history of proven leadership within the public safety community including, if applicable, a description of prior experience with law enforcement, fire response, emergency medical services, emergency communications, National Guard, or other first responder roles and how the use of communications in those roles qualifies the nominee to participate on the P25 CAP AP.

    • Name, title, and organization of the nominee.

    • A resume summarizing the nominee's contact information (including the mailing address, phone number, facsimile number, and email address), qualifications, and expertise to explain why the nominee should be appointed to the P25 CAP AP.

    • The resume must demonstrate a minimum of ten years (10) years of experience directly using P25 systems in an operational environment in support of established public safety communications or from a system implementer/administrator perspective; a bachelor's or associate degree with an emphasis in communications and engineering may be substituted for three (3) years, a master's/professional certification for seven (7) years, and a Ph.D. for ten (10) years of the requirement.

    • The resume must discuss the nominee's familiarity with the current P25 CAP, including documents that are integral to the process such as the SDOCs, STRs, and CABs referenced in this notice.

    • A letter from the nominee's supervisor indicating the nominee's agency's support for the nominee to participate on the P25 CAP AP.

    • Disclosure of Federal boards, commissions, committees, task forces, or work groups on which the nominee currently serves or has served within the past 12 months.

    • A statement confirming that the nominee is not registered as a lobbyist pursuant to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.

    Additional information can be found as follows:

    Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program and Compliance Assessment Bulletins http://www.firstresponder.gov/P25%20CAP%20Resources/Pages/P25CAPResources.aspx http://www.firstresponder.gov/P25%20CAP%20Resources/Pages/Policy.aspx Dated: July 31, 2015. Reginald Brothers, Under Secretary, DHS Science and Technology Directorate.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19396 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9F-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5828-N-32] Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.).

    Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.

    Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to: Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 5B-17, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-2265 (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.

    For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.

    For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.

    Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the Federal Register, the landholding agency, and the property number.

    For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses: COAST GUARD: Commandant, United States Coast Guard, Attn: Jennifer Stomber, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Stop 7741, Washington, DC 20593-7714; (202) 475-5609; COE: Mr. Scott Whiteford, Army Corps of Engineers, Real Estate, CEMP-CR, 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20314; (202) 761-5542; GSA: Mr. Flavio Peres, General Services Administration, Office of Real Property Utilization and Disposal, 1800 F Street NW., Room 7040, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-0084; HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 5B-17, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-2265; NAVY: Mr. Steve Matteo, Department of the Navy, Asset Management; Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington Navy Yard, 1330 Patterson Ave. SW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20374; (202) 685-9426. (These are not toll-free numbers).

    Dated: July 30, 2015. Brian P. Fitzmaurice Director, Division of Community Assistance, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs. TITLE V, FEDERAL SURPLUS PROPERTY PROGRAM FEDERAL REGISTER REPORT FOR 08/07/2015 Suitable/Available Properties Building North Carolina 2 Buildings East of NC Hwy 33 Hobucken NC 28537 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201530011 Status: Excess Directions: 200' Communication Tower; Tower Support Facility Comments: off-site removal only; contact Navy for information Oklahoma SWT-Roberts S. Kerr Lake Applegate Crave HC61 Box 238 Sallisaw OK 74955 Landholding Agency: COE Property Number: 31201530001 Status: Unutilized Comments: 263.97 sq. ft.; toilet; 43+ yrs.-old; poor conditions; contact COE for more information Land Tennessee Parcels ED-13, 3A, 16 Portions of D-8 & ED-4 N. Side of Oak Ridge Turnpike (State Rte. 58) Oak Ridge TN 37763 Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54201530001 Status: Surplus GSA Number: 4-B-TN-0664-AF Directions: Energy: Landholding Agency; GSA: Disposal Agency Comments: 168 ± acres; legal constraints: ingress/egress utility easement; groundwater constraints; contact GSA for more information Unsuitable Properties Building Arizona 11 Buildings Marine Corps Air Station Yuma Yuma AZ 85369 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201530003 Status: Unutilized Directions: Building's 90, 92, 97, 98, 99, 102, 107, 110, 111, 113, 118 Comments: Public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 11 Buildings Marine Corps Air Station Yuma Yuma AZ 85369 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201530004 Status: Unutilized Directions: Building's 501, 600, 2100, 2101, 2102, 2103, 2104, 2105, 2106, 2107, 619 Comments: Public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 10 Buildings Marine Corps Air Station Yuma Yuma AZ 85369 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201530005 Status: Unutilized Directions: Building's 2108, 2111, 2113, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2118, 2119, 2120, 2125 Comments: Public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Hawaii 3 Buildings Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam Honolulu HI 96860 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201530009 Status: Excess Directions: 1237—NEX Services Outlet; 1417—Radioactive Waste Steam Plant; 1660—Dry-dock 4 Support Facility Comments: Public access denied and no alternative method to gain access w/out compromising national security Reasons: Secured Area 3 Buildings Rainbow Hale Child Development Center JBPHH HI Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201530010 Status: Excess Directions: 2266; 2267; 2268 Comments: Documented deficiencies: significant structural/exterior/interior damage due to termite infestation; documentation provided represents a clear threat to personal safety Reasons: Extensive deterioration New York 3 Buildings Stewart Enclave, Stewart ANGB 700 Aviation Ave. New Windsor NY Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201530007 Status: Underutilized Directions: 801, 807; and 811 Comments: Public access denied and no alternative method to gain access w/out compromising national security Reasons: Secured Area 2 Buildings 4856 Clair Rd. Millport NY 14864 Landholding Agency: Coast Guard Property Number: 88201530005 Status: Excess Directions: Backup Power Generator Hut E- (OV1) [44732] Elmira High Level Site; Equipment Hut (OW01) [813823] Comments: Public access denied and no alternative method to gain access w/out compromising national security Reasons: Secured Area Pennsylvania Building 108—Warehouse (PAPR0108) 626 Cochrans Mill Rd. Pittsburgh PA 15236 Landholding Agency: HHS Property Number: 57201530001 Status: Excess Comments: CDC'S secured campus; public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security Reasons: Secured Area Building 142-Lab (PAPR0142) 626 Cochrans Mill Rd. Pittsburgh PA 15236 Landholding Agency: HHS Property Number: 57201530002 Status: Excess Comments: CDC'S secured campus; public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security Reasons: Secured Area Building 161-Lab (PAPR0161) 626 Cochrans Mill Rd. Pittsburgh PA 15236 Landholding Agency: HHS Property Number: 57201530003 Status: Excess Comments: CDC'S secured campus; public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security Reasons: Secured Area Building 211-Warehouse (PAPR0211) 626 Cochrans Mill Rd. Pittsburgh PA 15236 Landholding Agency: HHS Property Number: 57201530004 Status: Excess Comments: CDC'S secured campus; public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security Reasons: Secured Area Building 222-Explosive Magazine (PAPR0222) 626 Cochrans Mill Rd. Pittsburgh PA 15236 Landholding Agency: HHS Property Number: 57201530005 Status: Excess Comments: CDC'S secured campus; public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security Reasons: Secured Area Building 6-Lab (PAPR00006) 626 Cochrans Mill Rd. Pittsburgh PA 15236 Landholding Agency: HHS Property Number: 57201530006 Status: Excess Comments: CDC'S secured campus; public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security Reasons: Secured Area Building 39-Warehouse (PAPR0039) 626 Cochrans Mill Rd. Pittsburgh PA Landholding Agency: HHS Property Number: 57201530007 Status: Excess Comments: CDC'S secured campus; public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security Reasons: Secured Area Building 102-Warehouse (PAPR0102) 626 Cochrans Mill Rd. Pittsburgh PA 15236 Landholding Agency: HHS Property Number: 57201530008 Status: Excess Comments: CDC'S secured campus; public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security Reasons: Secured Area Building 229-Explosive Magazine (PAPR0229) 626 Cochrans Mill Rd. Pittsburgh PA 15236 Landholding Agency: HHS Property Number: 57201530009 Status: Excess Comments: CDC'S secured campus; public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security Reasons: Secured Area Land Indiana 9 Hole Golf Course & Adjacent Vacant Land Naval Support Activity Crane Crane IN 47522 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201530008 Status: Underutilized Comments: Public access denied and no alternative method to gain access w/out compromising national security Reasons: Secured Area
    [FR Doc. 2015-19216 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5847-N-02] Mortgage and Loan Insurance Programs Under the National Housing Act—Debenture Interest Rates AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces changes in the interest rates to be paid on debentures issued with respect to a loan or mortgage insured by the Federal Housing Administration under the provisions of the National Housing Act (the Act). The interest rate for debentures issued under section 221(g)(4) of the Act during the 6-month period beginning July 1, 2015, is 21/8 percent. The interest rate for debentures issued under any other provision of the Act is the rate in effect on the date that the commitment to insure the loan or mortgage was issued, or the date that the loan or mortgage was endorsed (or initially endorsed if there are two or more endorsements) for insurance, whichever rate is higher. The interest rate for debentures issued under these other provisions with respect to a loan or mortgage committed or endorsed during the 6-month period beginning July 1, 2015, is 27/8 percent. However, as a result of an amendment to section 224 of the Act, if an insurance claim relating to a mortgage insured under sections 203 or 234 of the Act and endorsed for insurance after January 23, 2004, is paid in cash, the debenture interest rate for purposes of calculating a claim shall be the monthly average yield, for the month in which the default on the mortgage occurred, on United States Treasury Securities adjusted to a constant maturity of 10 years.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yong Sun, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 5148, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone (202) 402-4778 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 224 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715o) provides that debentures issued under the Act with respect to an insured loan or mortgage (except for debentures issued pursuant to section 221(g)(4) of the Act) will bear interest at the rate in effect on the date the commitment to insure the loan or mortgage was issued, or the date the loan or mortgage was endorsed (or initially endorsed if there are two or more endorsements) for insurance, whichever rate is higher. This provision is implemented in HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 203.405, 203.479, 207.259(e)(6), and 220.830. These regulatory provisions state that the applicable rates of interest will be published twice each year as a notice in the Federal Register.

    Section 224 further provides that the interest rate on these debentures will be set from time to time by the Secretary of HUD, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, in an amount not in excess of the annual interest rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to a statutory formula based on the average yield of all outstanding marketable Treasury obligations of maturities of 15 or more years.

    The Secretary of the Treasury (1) has determined, in accordance with the provisions of section 224, that the statutory maximum interest rate for the period beginning July 1, 2015, is 27/8 percent; and (2) has approved the establishment of the debenture interest rate by the Secretary of HUD at 27/8 percent for the 6-month period beginning July 1, 2015. This interest rate will be the rate borne by debentures issued with respect to any insured loan or mortgage (except for debentures issued pursuant to section 221(g)(4)) with insurance commitment or endorsement date (as applicable) within the latter 6 months of 2015.

    For convenience of reference, HUD is publishing the following chart of debenture interest rates applicable to mortgages committed or endorsed since January 1, 1980:

    Effective
  • interest
  • rate
  • on or after prior to
    91/2 Jan. 1, 1980 July 1, 1980 97/8 July 1, 1980 Jan. 1, 1981 113/4 Jan. 1, 1981 July 1, 1981 127/8 July 1, 1981 Jan. 1, 1982 123/4 Jan. 1, 1982 Jan. 1, 1983 101/4 Jan. 1, 1983 July 1, 1983 103/8 July 1, 1983 Jan. 1, 1984 111/2 Jan. 1, 1984 July 1, 1984 133/8 July 1, 1984 Jan. 1, 1985 115/8 Jan. 1, 1985 July 1, 1985 111/8 July 1, 1985 Jan. 1, 1986 101/4 Jan. 1, 1986 July 1, 1986 81/4 July 1, 1986 Jan. 1. 1987 8 Jan. 1, 1987 July 1, 1987 9 July 1, 1987 Jan. 1, 1988 91/8 Jan. 1, 1988 July 1, 1988 93/8 July 1, 1988 Jan. 1, 1989 91/4 Jan. 1, 1989 July 1, 1989 9 July 1, 1989 Jan. 1, 1990 81/8 Jan. 1, 1990 July 1, 1990 9 July 1, 1990 Jan. 1, 1991 83/4 Jan. 1, 1991 July 1, 1991 81/2 July 1, 1991 Jan. 1, 1992 8 Jan. 1, 1992 July 1, 1992 8 July 1, 1992 Jan. 1, 1993 73/4 Jan. 1, 1993 July 1, 1993 7 July 1, 1993 Jan. 1, 1994 65/8 Jan. 1, 1994 July 1, 1994 73/4 July 1, 1994 Jan. 1, 1995 83/8 Jan. 1, 1995 July 1, 1995 71/4 July 1, 1995 Jan. 1, 1996 61/2 Jan. 1, 1996 July 1, 1996 71/4 July 1, 1996 Jan. 1, 1997 63/4 Jan. 1, 1997 July 1, 1997 71/8 July 1, 1997 Jan. 1, 1998 63/8 Jan. 1, 1998 July 1, 1998 61/8 July 1, 1998 Jan. 1, 1999 51/2 Jan. 1, 1999 July 1, 1999 61/8 July 1, 1999 Jan. 1, 2000 61/2 Jan. 1, 2000 July 1, 2000 61/2 July 1, 2000 Jan. 1, 2001 6 Jan. 1, 2001 July 1, 2001 57/8 July 1, 2001 Jan. 1, 2002 51/4 Jan. 1, 2002 July 1, 2002 53/4 July 1, 2002 Jan. 1, 2003 5 Jan. 1, 2003 July 1, 2003 41/2 July 1, 2003 Jan. 1, 2004 51/8 Jan. 1, 2004 July 1, 2004 51/2 July 1, 2004 Jan. 1, 2005 47/8 Jan. 1, 2005 July 1, 2005 41/2 July 1, 2005 Jan. 1, 2006 47/8 Jan. 1, 2006 July 1, 2006 53/8 July 1, 2006 Jan. 1, 2007 43/4 Jan. 1, 2007 July 1, 2007 5 July 1, 2007 Jan. 1, 2008 41/2 Jan. 1, 2008 July 1, 2008 45/8 July 1, 2008 Jan. 1, 2009 41/8 Jan. 1, 2009 July 1, 2009 41/8 July 1, 2009 Jan. 1, 2010 41/4 Jan. 1, 2010 July 1, 2010 41/8 July 1, 2010 Jan. 1, 2011 37/8 Jan. 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 41/8 July 1, 2011 Jan. 1, 2012 27/8 Jan. 1, 2012 July 1, 2012 23/4 July 1, 2012 Jan. 1, 2013 21/2 Jan. 1, 2013 July 1, 2013 27/8 July 1, 2013 Jan. 1, 2014 35/8 Jan. 1, 2014 July 1, 2014 31/4 July 1, 2014 Jan. 1, 2015 3 Jan. 1, 2015 July 1, 2015 27/8 July 1, 2015 Jan. 1, 2016

    Section 215 of Division G, Title II of Public Law 108-199, enacted January 23, 2004 (HUD's 2004 Appropriations Act) amended section 224 of the Act, to change the debenture interest rate for purposes of calculating certain insurance claim payments made in cash. Therefore, for all claims paid in cash on mortgages insured under section 203 or 234 of the National Housing Act and endorsed for insurance after January 23, 2004, the debenture interest rate will be the monthly average yield, for the month in which the default on the mortgage occurred, on United States Treasury Securities adjusted to a constant maturity of 10 years, as found in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H-15. The Federal Housing Administration has codified this provision in HUD regulations at 24 CFR 203.405(b) and 24 CFR 203.479(b).

    Section 221(g)(4) of the Act provides that debentures issued pursuant to that paragraph (with respect to the assignment of an insured mortgage to the Secretary) will bear interest at the “going Federal rate” in effect at the time the debentures are issued. The term “going Federal rate” is defined to mean the interest rate that the Secretary of the Treasury determines, pursuant to a statutory formula based on the average yield on all outstanding marketable Treasury obligations of 8- to 12-year maturities, for the 6-month periods of January through June and July through December of each year. Section 221(g)(4) is implemented in the HUD regulations at 24 CFR 221.255 and 24 CFR 221.790.

    The Secretary of the Treasury has determined that the interest rate to be borne by debentures issued pursuant to section 221(g)(4) during the 6-month period beginning July 1, 2015, is 21/8 percent.

    The subject matter of this notice falls within the categorical exemption from HUD's environmental clearance procedures set forth in 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6). For that reason, no environmental finding has been prepared for this notice.

    Authority:

    Sections 211, 221, 224, National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1715b, 1715l, 1715o; Section 7(d), Department of HUD Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    Dated: July 23, 2015. Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19391 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R8-ES-2015-N124: FF08ENVD00-FXES11130800000-156] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Enhancement of Survival Permit Application; Greater Sage-Grouse Candidate Conservation Agreement With Assurances for Smith Creek Ranch LTD AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application for an enhancement of survival permit (EOS) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The permit application includes a draft candidate conservation agreement with assurances (CCAA) between Smith Creek Ranch LTD and the Service for the greater sage-grouse on private rangelands in Churchill and Lander Counties, Nevada. We invite comments from all interested parties on the application, including the draft CCAA, and a draft environmental action statement (EAS) prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, written comments must be received from interested parties no later than September 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    To request further information or submit written comments, please use one of the following methods, and note that your information request or comments are in reference to the Smith Creek Ranch LTD CCAA.

    Internet: Documents may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/nevada.

    Email: [email protected] Include “Smith Creek Ranch CCAA” in the subject line of the message or comments.

    U.S. Mail: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502.

    Fax: 775-861-6301. Include “Smith Creek Ranch CCAA” in the subject line of the message or comments.

    In-Person Viewing or Pickup: Documents will be available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the Reno Fish and Wildlife Office (address above).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Edward D. Koch, Field Supervisor, Reno Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone (775-861-6300), or by facsimile (775-861-6301). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We have received an application from Smith Creek Ranch LTD for an EOS permit under the ESA. The permit application includes a CCAA between the applicant and the Service for the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in Churchill and Lander Counties, Nevada. The Service and the applicant prepared the CCAA to provide the applicant with the opportunity to voluntarily conserve the greater sage-grouse and its habitat while carrying out ranch operations. We have made a preliminary determination that the proposed CCAA and permit issuance are eligible for categorical exclusion under NEPA. The basis for our preliminary determination is contained in an EAS. We invite comments from all interested parties on the application, including the CCAA and the EAS.

    Background Information

    Private and other non-Federal property owners are encouraged to enter into CCAAs, in which they voluntarily undertake management activities on their properties to enhance, restore, or maintain habitat benefiting species that are proposed for listing under the ESA, candidates for listing, or species that may become candidates or proposed for listing. Through a CCAA and its associated EOS permit, the Service provides assurances to property owners that they will not be subjected to increased land use restrictions if the covered species become listed under the ESA in the future, provided the CCAA is being properly implemented and the EOS permit conditions are met. Application requirements and issuance criteria for EOS permits for CCAAs are found in the Code of Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.22(d) and 17.32 (d), respectively. See also our joint policy on CCAAs, which we published in the Federal Register with the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (64 FR 32726; June 17, 1999), as well as our revisions to that policy (69 FR 24084; May 3, 2004).

    On March 23, 2010, the Service published a 12-month finding in the Federal Register (75 FR 13910) that the greater sage-grouse warrants listing under the ESA as threatened or endangered throughout is range, but this action was precluded by other higher priority listing actions. In anticipation of a future listing decision by the Service, the applicant requested assistance from the Service in developing a CCAA addressing the needs of the greater sage-grouse on lands owned in Churchill and Lander Counties, Nevada. Under the proposed CCAA, the applicant will address threats to the greater sage-grouse through implementation of conservation measures that are consistent with their land use activities and the CCAA. Through the issuance of an EOS permit, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA, the applicant would be authorized to incidentally take greater sage-grouse in the course of implementing the CCAA if the species becomes listed under the ESA in the future, as long as the terms and conditions of the permit and the CCAA are followed.

    Proposed Action

    The Service proposes to approve the CCAA and to issue an EOS permit, both with a term of 20 years, to Smith Creek Ranch LTD for incidental take of greater sage-grouse caused by covered activities, if permit issuance criteria are met. The area to be addressed under this proposed CCAA (i.e., covered lands) includes approximately 2,200 acres in Churchill and Lander Counties, Nevada. Greater sage-grouse currently use suitable habitat on the covered lands for nesting, early and late brood-rearing, and wintering. The proposed CCAA describes the threats to the greater sage-grouse that have been identified on the enrolled lands, and the conservation measures the applicant will implement to address these threats. Implementation of the conservation measures identified in the CCAA is expected to benefit the greater sage-grouse by (1) Maintaining tracts of unfragmented and undeveloped land; (2) managing weeds and invasive plant species; and (3) maintaining healthy, intact nesting, brood-rearing and wintering habitats. The CCAA has been developed in support of a EOS permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA.

    Consistent with our CCAA Policy (64 FR 32726), the conservation goal of the proposed CCAA is to encourage enhancement and protection of greater sage-grouse habitat on non-Federal lands by either maintaining or modifying existing land uses so that they are consistent with the conservation needs of the greater sage-grouse. We can meet this conservation goal with the use of a CCAA by giving non-Federal landowners incentives to implement conservation measures, primarily through regulatory certainty concerning land-use restrictions that might otherwise apply should the greater sage-grouse become listed under the ESA.

    We have made a preliminary determination that the proposed CCAA and permit issuance are eligible for categorical exclusion under NEPA. The basis for our preliminary determination is contained in an EAS, which is available for public review (see ADDRESSES).

    Public Comments

    We request data, comments, new information, or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, Tribes, industry, or any other interested party on this notice. We particularly seek comments on the following: (1) Biological information concerning the greater sage-grouse; (2) relevant data concerning this species; (3) additional information concerning the range, distribution, population size, and population trends of the greater sage-grouse; (4) current or planned activities in the covered area and their possible impacts on the species; (5) identification of any other environmental issues that should be considered with regard to the proposed permit action; and (6) information regarding the adequacy of the CCAA pursuant to the requirements for permits at 50 CFR parts 13 and 17.

    Public Availability of Comments

    All comments and materials we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifiable information (PII) in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your PII—may be made publically available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your PII from public review, we cannot guarantee we will be able to do so. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the draft EAS, will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at our Reno Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).

    Next Steps

    We will evaluate the permit application, associated documents, and comments we receive to determine whether the permit application meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA and NEPA and their implementing regulations. We will also evaluate whether issuance of an EOS permit would comply with section 7 of the ESA by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation on the proposed permit action. If we determine that all requirements are met, we will sign the proposed CCAA and issue an EOS permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA to Smith Creek Ranch LTD for incidental take of greater sage-grouse that is likely to occur with implementation of the CCAA. We will not make our final decision until after the end of the 30-day public comment period, and we will fully consider all comments we receive during the public comment period.

    Authority

    We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and their implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 40 CFR 1506.6, respectively).

    Edward D. Koch, Field Supervisor, Reno Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19469 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Geological Survey [GX15BA02EEW0200] Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments; USA National Phenology Network—The Nature's Notebook Plant and Animal Observing Program AGENCY:

    U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a revision of a currently approved information collection.

    SUMMARY:

    We (the U.S. Geological Survey) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This collection is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive them on or before October 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this information collection to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 807, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); (703) 648-7197 (fax); or [email protected] (email). Please reference `Information Collection 1028-0103, USA National Phenology Network—The Nature's Notebook Plant and Animal Observing Program' in all correspondence.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jake Weltzin, U.S. Geological Survey, 1955 East 6th Street, Tucson, AZ 85721 (mail); (520) 626-3821 (phone); or [email protected] (email). You may also find information about this ICR at www.reginfo.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    The USA-NPN is a program sponsored by the USGS that uses standardized forms for tracking plant and animal activity as part of a project called Nature's Notebook. The Nature's Notebook forms are used to record phenology (e.g., timing of leafing or flowering of plants and reproduction or migration of animals) as part of a nationwide effort to understand and predict how plants and animals respond to environmental variation and changes in weather and climate. Contemporary data collected through Nature's Notebook are quality-checked, described and made publicly available; data are used to inform decision-making in a variety of contexts, including agriculture, drought monitoring, and wildfire risk assessment. Phenological information is also critical for the management of wildlife, invasive species, and agricultural pests, and for understanding and managing risks to human health and welfare, including allergies, asthma, and vector-borne diseases. Participants may contribute phenology information to Nature's Notebook through a browser-based web application or via mobile applications for iPhone and Android operating systems, meeting GPEA requirements. The web application interface consists several components: User registration, a searchable list of 1,016 plant and animal species which can be observed; a “profile” for each species that contains information about the species including its description and the appropriate monitoring protocols; a series of interfaces for registering as an observer, registering a site, registering plants and animals at a site, generating datasheets to take to the field, and a data entry page that mimics the datasheets.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1028-0103.

    Form Number: Various (4 forms).

    Title: USA National Phenology Network—The Nature's Notebook Plant and Animal Observing Program.

    Type of Request: Notice of an extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Affected Public: Members of the public, registered with Nature's Notebook.

    Respondent's Obligation: None. Participation is voluntary.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion. During the Spring and Fall seasons when phenology is changing quickly, we recommend respondents make observations twice per week.

    Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses: We project that 6,478 responders will register with Nature's Notebook, and of those 648 will watch the training videos. The same 6,478 responders will contribute 2,627,155 observation records. In total, this will result in 2,634,269 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: When joining the program, responders spend 13 minutes each to register and read guidelines and 83 minutes to watch all training videos. After that responders may spend about 2 minutes per record to observe and submit phenophase status record.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 89,871.

    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: We estimate the total annual non-hour cost burden to be $11,447. This cost applies to new observers and includes material used to mark sites or plants during the first observation. Marking helps to ensure reporting consistency for future observations.

    Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number and current expiration date.

    III. Request for Comments

    We are soliciting comments as to: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Jake Weltzin, Program Manager, Status & Trends Program and Executive Director, USA National Phenology Network.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19400 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4311-AM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Geological Survey [GX15EE000101000] Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments: National Spatial Data Infrastructure Cooperative Agreements Program (NSDI CAP) AGENCY:

    U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a new information collection.

    SUMMARY:

    We (the U.S. Geological Survey) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC.

    DATES:

    To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive them on or before October 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this information collection to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 807, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); (703) 648-7197 (fax); or [email protected] (email). Please reference `Information Collection 1028—NEW, NSDI CAP in all correspondence.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brigitta Urban-Mathieux, Federal Geographic Data Committee Office of the Secretariat, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 590, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); 703-648-5175 (phone); or [email protected] (email). You may also find information about this ICR at www.reginfo.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    Respondents are submitting proposals to acquire funding for projects to help build the infrastructure necessary for the geospatial data community to effectively discover, access, share, manage, and use digital geographic data. The National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) consists of the technologies, policies, organizations, and people necessary to promote cost-effective production, and the ready availability and greater utilization of geospatial data among a variety of sectors, disciplines, and communities. Specific NSDI areas of emphasis include: Metadata documentation, clearinghouse establishment, geospatial data framework development, standards implementation, and geographic information system (GIS) organizational coordination.

    We will issue a request for proposal (RFP) via Grant.gov. The incoming proposals will be reviewed and scored based on the responses to the questions in the RFP. Responses are voluntary. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked. We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and it's implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection.” We intend to release the project abstracts and primary investigators for awarded/funded projects only.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1028—NEW.

    Form Number: NA

    Title: National Spatial Data Infrastructure Cooperative Agreements Program (NSDI CAP).

    Type of Request: New information collection.

    Affected Public: Private Sector; State, Local, and Tribal governments; Academia, and Non-profit organizations.

    Respondent's Obligation: None. Participation is voluntary.

    Frequency of Collection: This is an annual offer.

    Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses: 60

    Estimated Time per Response: 25 hours

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 1,500 hours.

    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: None.

    Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number and current expiration date.

    III. Request for Comments

    We are soliciting comments as to: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your personal mailing address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Ivan DeLoatch, Executive Director, Federal Geographic Data Committee, Core Science Systems.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19384 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4311-AM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCA942000 L57000000.BX0000 13X L5017AR] Filing of Plats of Survey: California AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The plats of survey of lands described below are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, Sacramento, California.

    DATES:

    September 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of the plats may be obtained from the California State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, California 95825, upon required payment.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chief, Branch of Geographic Services, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way W-1623, Sacramento, California 95825, (916) 978-4310. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-(800)-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A person or party who wishes to protest a survey must file a notice that they wish to protest with the Chief, Branch of Geographic Services. A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest and must be filed with the Chief, Branch of Geographic Services within thirty days after the protest is filed. If a protest against the survey is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Humboldt Meridian, California

    T. 11 N., R. 3 E., supplemental plat of the S 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of section 7, accepted July 29, 2015.

    Mount Diablo Meridian, California

    T. 23 N., R. 13 W., metes-and-bounds survey of lots in section 36, accepted July 21, 2015.

    T. 17 S., R. 8 E., dependent resurvey and subdivision of section 6, accepted July 28, 2015.

    San Bernardino Meridian, California

    T. 9 N., R. 23 E., supplemental plat of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of section 31, accepted July 14, 2015.

    T. 9 S., R. 14 E., supplemental plat of the SW 1/4 of section 32, accepted July 15, 2015.

    T. 2 N., R. 9 E., dependent resurvey and subdivision of section 34, accepted July 21, 2015.

    Authority:

    43 U.S.C., Chapter 3.

    Dated: July 31, 2015. Lance J. Bishop, Chief Cadastral Surveyor, California.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19463 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCAD06000.L51010000. ER0000.15XL5017AP.LVRWB15B5410] Notice of Availability of the Draft Joint Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the West of Devers Upgrade Project, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, CA AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Availability.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the West of Devers Upgrade Project (WOD UP) and by this notice is announcing the opening of the comment period. This document is also an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

    DATES:

    To ensure comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the West of Devers Upgrade Project Draft Joint EIR/EIS within 45 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. The BLM will announce future meetings or hearings and any other public involvement activities at least 15 days in advance through public notices, media releases, and/or mailings.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments related to the WOD UP by any of the following methods:

    • Web site: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/palmsprings/transmission/WestOfDeversProject.html.

    • Email: [email protected]

    • Fax: 760-833-7199.

    • Mail: WOD Project Manager; BLM Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office, 1201 Bird Center Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262

    Copies of the Draft Joint EIR/EIS for the WOD UP are available in the Palm Springs/South Coast Field Office at the above address and the BLM California Desert District Office, 22835 Calle San Juan De Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, CA 92553.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Frank McMenimen, Project Manager, telephone 760-833-7150; address 1201 Bird Center Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262; email [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes to upgrade and adjust the routes of the following existing 220 kV transmission lines within SCE's existing West of Devers right-of-way corridor in incorporated and unincorporated areas of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, including: Devers-El Casco, El Casco-San Bernardino, Devers-San Bernardino, Devers-Vista No. 1 and No. 2, Etiwanda-San Bernardino, and San Bernardino-Vista.

    Of the overall 48-mile length of the transmission corridor, approximately 6 miles would cross Trust Lands (Reservation) of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and approximately 1 mile is on BLM- administered public lands. The BLM lands are located east of the City of Banning and west of the City of Desert Hot Springs in Riverside County.

    In addition to the transmission line improvements, substation equipment at Devers, El Casco, Etiwanda, San Bernardino, Timoteo and Tennessee and Vista Substations would be upgraded to accommodate the project changes to transmission and subtransmission systems. Construction of the WOD UP would facilitate the full deliverability of new renewable energy generation resources now being developed in eastern Riverside County, including the BLM's Riverside East Solar Energy Zone, into the Los Angeles area.

    The WOD UP would facilitate progress towards meeting California's Renewable Portfolio Standard goals requiring utilities to produce 33 percent of their electricity sales from renewable energy sources by 2020. Utility-scale solar energy development in eastern Riverside County plays an important role in meeting California's renewable energy goals, allowing for immediate and sizeable deployment, driving costs down and taking advantage of the State's best renewable energy resources. Additionally, these upgrades are required to comply with transmission reliability standards and will support integration of small scale electricity generation.

    In addition to the Proposed Project, the WOD UP Draft Joint EIR/EIS considers three project alternatives and a No Action/No Project alternative, as well as connected actions enabled by the project. The first alternative moves towers away from residences. The second alternative would place portions of the line underground. The third alternative would use fewer towers, and would not remove all the old towers and poles, leaving future expansion opportunities. Based on the small amount of BLM lands involved, and because of the lack of apparent resource conflicts for the BLM among the alternatives, the BLM has not identified a preferred alternative. The BLM will identify a preferred alternative for the Final EIS based on feedback on the Draft EIS from the public and cooperating agencies.

    During the public scoping process, BLM personnel, Federal, State, local agencies, and other stakeholders identified issues for the EIR/EIS, including aesthetics/visual effects; conflicts with existing land uses; social and economic effects, including property values; fire, electric and magnetic fields, and other hazards; construction-related impacts from dust and traffic; slope stability; effects on biological resources; and possible curtailment of electric generation during construction.

    Please note that public comments and information submitted including names, street addresses, and email addresses of persons who submit comments will be available for public review and disclosure at the above address during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority:

    40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10.

    Danielle Chi, Associate Deputy State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19497 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLNV912. L12100000.PH0000 LXSS006F0000 261A; 14-08807; MO# 4500082128] Notice of Public Meetings: Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, Nevada AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will hold a meeting in Nevada, in September 2015. The meeting is open to the public.

    DATES and Times:

    September 17 and 18 at the BLM Winnemucca, Nevada District. A meeting will be held on Thursday, September 17, at the Winnemucca BLM District Office (5100 East Winnemucca Blvd.) in Winnemucca, Nevada. Approximate meeting times are 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. However, meetings could end earlier if discussions and presentations conclude before 4 p.m. The meeting will include a public comment period at approximately 11:30 a.m. A field trip will be held on Friday, September 18 within the Winnemucca BLM District.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa Ross, Public Affairs Specialist, Carson City District Office, 5665 Morgan Mill Road, Carson City, NV 89701, telephone: (775) 885-6107, email: [email protected]. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Nevada. Topics for discussion at the meeting will include, but are not limited to:

    • September 17-18 (Carson City)—landscape vegetative management, rangeland health assessments, Fire Invasive Assessment Tool (FIAT), sage grouse, drought, and fire restoration.

    Managers' reports of district office activities will be distributed at each meeting. The Council may raise other topics at the meetings.

    Final agendas will be posted on-line at the BLM Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin RAC Web site at http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/res/resource_advisory.html and will be published in local and regional media sources at least 14 days before each meeting.

    Individuals who need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, or who wish to receive a copy of each agenda, may contact Lisa Ross no later than 10 days prior to each meeting.

    Stephen Clutter, Chief, Office of Communications.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19464 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation [RR02030000, 15XR0687NA, RX185279046000000] Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Feasibility Report for the Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation, Shasta and Tehama Counties, California AGENCY:

    Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Reclamation has prepared the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation (SLWRI). The purpose of the proposed action is to improve operational flexibility of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta watershed system by modifying the existing Shasta Dam and Reservoir to meet specified objectives. Primary objectives are to increase the survival of anadromous fish populations in the upper Sacramento River and increase water supply and water supply reliability for agricultural, municipal and industrial, and environmental purposes. Secondary planning objectives are to: Conserve, restore, and enhance ecosystem resources in the primary study area; reduce flood damage along the Sacramento River; develop additional hydropower generation capabilities at Shasta Dam; maintain and increase recreation opportunities at Shasta Lake; and maintain or improve water quality conditions in the Sacramento River downstream from Shasta Dam and in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The companion Final Feasibility Report is also available, and together, these documents are provided to inform the Congress and the public of the technical studies conducted to date.

    DATES:

    Ultimately, if the project is authorized by Congress, the Secretary may issue a Record of Decision (ROD) at least 30 days after release of the FEIS. The ROD will state the action that will be implemented, consistent with Congressional authorization, and will discuss all factors leading to the decision.

    ADDRESSES:

    The FEIS may be viewed at the SLWRI Web site at www.usbr.gov/mp/slwri. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for locations where copies of the FEIS are available for public review.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Katrina Chow, Reclamation Project Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825; 916-978-5067, TDD 916-978-5608; via fax at 916-978-5094; or email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2013 (78 FR 39315). The comment period on the DEIS ended on September 30, 2013. The FEIS contains responses to all comments received and reflects comments and any additional information received during the review period. The Final Feasibility Report and FEIS incorporate clarifying information in consideration of comments received.

    Shasta Dam was completed in 1945 to serve multiple purposes, including flood control; water supply for agricultural, municipal and industrial, and environmental purposes; and hydropower generation. In addition, extensive recreational opportunities in and around Shasta Lake significantly contribute to the regional economy.

    Authorization for the investigation comes from Public Law (Pub. L.) 96-375, 1980, directing the Secretary of the Interior to engage in feasibility studies related to enlarging Shasta Dam and Reservoir. Related legislation includes Title 34 of Pub. L. 102-575 (the Central Valley Project Improvement Act) and Pub. L. 108-361, the CALFED Bay-Delta Authorization Act. In addition, enlargement of Shasta Dam was identified in the CALFED Programmatic Environmental Impact Report/Statement and Record of Decision.

    With the release of the FEIS, the Final Feasibility Report and FEIS will be provided to Congress. The following planning objectives apply to the proposed action/project modification.

    Planning Objectives

    • Primary Planning objectives: (1) Increase the survival of anadromous fish populations in the Sacramento River, primarily upstream from the Red Bluff Diversion Dam, and (2) increase water supply and water supply reliability for agricultural, municipal and industrial, and environmental purposes to help meet future water demands, with a focus on enlarging Shasta Dam and Reservoir. Action alternatives were formulated to address these primary planning objectives.

    • Secondary Planning Objectives. The following actions, operations, or features are included to the extent possible and consistent with the primary planning objectives: (1) Conserve, restore, and enhance ecosystem resources in the Shasta Lake area and along the upper Sacramento River, (2) reduce flood damage along the Sacramento River, (3) develop additional hydropower generation capabilities at Shasta Dam, (4) maintain and increase recreation opportunities at Shasta Lake, and (5) maintain or improve water quality conditions in the Sacramento River downstream from Shasta Dam and in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

    Final Environmental Impact Statement

    The FEIS documents a reasonable range of alternatives and evaluates the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of alternative plans. Evaluation of six alternatives is documented in the FEIS, including a No-Action Alternative and five action alternatives. The FEIS displays the potential project-related impacts, including the effects of project construction and operation on the following resource areas: Geology, air quality, hydrology, water quality, noise, hazards and hazardous materials, important agricultural lands, fish, vegetation and wildlife, cultural resources, Indian Trust Assets, socioeconomics, land use, recreation, visual resources, traffic and circulation, utilities, public services, power and energy, environmental justice, and wild and scenic rivers; and identifies the Preferred Alternative, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.

    Potential project-related impacts include the construction-related effects of the dam enlargement, reservoir area relocations, and other alternative features; water operations-related effects within the reservoir area (e.g., including additional inundation areas); and associated effects to operations of other Central Valley Project and State Water Project facilities. Project operations may directly or indirectly affect the resources of the Sacramento River, its tributaries, the San Joaquin River, its tributaries, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The FEIS also evaluates potential growth-inducing impacts for the Central Valley Project and State Water Project water service areas. Potential cumulative effects associated with reasonably foreseeable actions are also evaluated for each resource area.

    Copies of the FEIS and Final Feasibility Report are available for public review at the following locations:

    • Bureau of Reclamation, Regional Library, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825.

    • Bureau of Reclamation, Northern California Area Office, 16349 Shasta Dam Boulevard, Shasta Lake, CA 96019.

    • Natural Resources Library, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Main Interior Building, Washington, DC 20240.

    • Shasta County Main Library, 1855 Shasta Street, Redding, CA 96001.

    Copies of the FEIS and Final Feasibility Report are available on-line via the SLWRI Web site, at: www.usbr.gov/mp/slwri.

    Public Disclosure

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in any correspondence, you should be aware that your entire correspondence—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your correspondence to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: July 30, 2015. Jason Phillips, Deputy Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19472 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 332-555] Economic Impact of Trade Agreements Implemented Under Trade Authorities Procedures, 2016 Report AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Institution of investigation and scheduling of public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission has instituted investigation No. 332-555, Economic Impact of Trade Agreements Implemented Under Trade Authorities Procedures, 2016 Report, for the purpose of preparing the first of two reports required by section 105(f)(2) of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-26). Section 105(f)(2) requires that the Commission submit to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance two reports, one by June 29, 2016, and a second by June 29, 2020, on the economic impact on the United States of all trade agreements with respect to which Congress has enacted an implementing bill under trade authorities procedures since January 1, 1984.

    DATES:

    November 2, 2015: Deadline for filing requests to appear at the public hearing. November 4, 2015: Deadline for filing pre-hearing briefs and statements. November 17, 2015: Public hearing. November 30, 2015: Deadline for filing post-hearing briefs. February 5, 2016: Deadline for filing all other written statements. June 29, 2016: Transmittal of Commission report to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance. ADDRESSES:

    All Commission offices, including the Commission's hearing rooms, are located in the United States International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov/edis3-internal/app.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Project Leaders Tamar Khachaturian (202-205-3299 or [email protected]) and David Riker (202-205-2201 or [email protected]) or Deputy Project Leader Ravinder Ubee (202-205-3493 or [email protected]) for information specific to this investigation. For information on the legal aspects of these investigations, contact William Gearhart of the Commission's Office of the General Counsel (202-205-3091 or [email protected]). The media should contact Margaret O'Laughlin, Office of External Relations (202-205-1819 or [email protected]). Hearing-impaired individuals may obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at 202-205-1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000.

    Background: On June 29, 2015, the President signed the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (TPA). Section 105(f)(2) of the Act requires the Commission to submit two reports to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance, one in 2016 and a second not later than mid-2020, on the economic impact of trade agreements implemented under trade authorities procedures since 1984. Section 105(f)(2) provides as follows:

    (2) REPORT ON IMPACT OF TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY.— Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and not later than 5 years thereafter, the United States International Trade Commission shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a report on the economic impact on the United States of all trade agreements with respect to which Congress has enacted an implementing bill under trade authorities procedures since January 1, 1984.

    The Commission will submit its first report by June 29, 2016, and the second report by June 29, 2020. This notice pertains only to the procedures relating to preparation of the first report.

    For purposes of this report the Commission considers the trade agreements covered to include the Uruguay Round Agreements, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA—Canada and Mexico), and U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs) with Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic and five Central American countries (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua), Israel, Jordan, Korea, Morocco, Oman, Panama, Peru, and Singapore.

    The Commission has instituted an investigation under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)) for the purpose of preparing this report and also for the purpose of assisting the public in the filing and inspection of documents and also to make the report more readily accessible to the public through the Commission's Web site.

    Public Hearing: The Commission will hold a public hearing in connection with this investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC, beginning at 9:30 a.m. on November 17, 2015. Requests to appear at the public hearing should be filed with the Secretary, no later than 5:15 p.m., November 2, 2015, in accordance with the requirements in the “Submissions” section below. All pre-hearing briefs and statements should be filed no later than 5:15 p.m., November 4, 2015; and all post-hearing briefs and statements should be filed not later than 5:15 p.m., November 30, 2015. In the event that, as of the close of business on November 2, 2015, no witnesses are scheduled to appear at the hearing, the hearing will be canceled. Any person interested in attending the hearing as an observer or nonparticipant should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000 after November 2, 2015, for information concerning whether the hearing will be held.

    Written Submissions: In lieu of or in addition to participating in the hearing, interested parties are invited to file written submissions concerning this investigation. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary. Except in the case of requests to appear at the hearing and pre- and post-hearing briefs, all written submissions should be received no later than 5:15 p.m., February 5, 2016. All written submissions must conform to the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.8). Section 201.8 and the Commission's Handbook on Filing Procedures require that interested parties file documents electronically on or before the filing deadline and submit eight (8) true paper copies by 12:00 p.m. eastern time on the next business day. In the event that confidential treatment of a document is requested, interested parties must file, at the same time as the eight paper copies, at least four (4) additional true paper copies in which the confidential information must be deleted (see the following paragraph for further information regarding confidential business information). Persons with questions regarding electronic filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

    Any submissions that contain confidential business information (CBI) must also conform to the requirements of section 201.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.6). Section 201.6 of the rules requires that the cover of the document and the individual pages be clearly marked as to whether they are the “confidential” or “non-confidential” version, and that the confidential business information is clearly identified by means of brackets. All written submissions, except for confidential business information, will be made available for inspection by interested parties. Any confidential business information received by the Commission in this investigation and used in preparing this report will not be published in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.

    Summaries of Written Submissions: The Commission intends to publish summaries of the positions of interested persons in an appendix to its report. Persons wishing to have a summary of their position included in the appendix should include a summary with their written submission. The summary may not exceed 500 words, should be in MSWord format or a format that can be easily converted to MSWord, and should not include any confidential business information. The summary will be published as provided if it meets these requirements and is germane to the subject matter of the investigation. In the appendix the Commission will identify the name of the organization furnishing the summary, and will include a link to the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) where the full written submission can be found.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 4, 2015. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19436 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division United States and State of New York v. Twin America, LLC, et al.; Public Comment and Response on Proposed Final Judgment

    Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), the United States hereby publishes below the comment received on the proposed Final Judgment in United States and State of New York v. Twin America, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 12-cv-8989 (ALC) (GWG) (S.D.N.Y.), together with the Response of the United States to Public Comment.

    Copies of the comment and the United States' Response are available for inspection at the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, 450 Fifth Street NW., Suite 1010, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202-514-2481), on the Department of Justice's Web site at http://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-and-state-new-york-v-twin-america-llc-et-al, and at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. Copies of any of these materials may also be obtained upon request and payment of a copying fee.

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiffs, v. TWIN AMERICA, LLC, et al. Defendants.

    Civil Action No. 12-cv-8989 (ALC) (GWG) ECF Case RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES TO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

    Pursuant to the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h) (“Tunney Act”), the United States hereby files the single public comment received concerning the proposed Final Judgment in this case and the United States' response to the comment. After careful consideration of the submitted comment, the United States continues to believe that the proposed Final Judgment provides an effective and appropriate remedy for the violations alleged in the Complaint. The United States will move the Court for entry of the proposed Final Judgment after the public comment and this Response have been published in the Federal Register pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 16(d).

    I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

    On March 17, 2009, Defendants Coach USA, Inc. (through subsidiary International Bus Services, Inc.) and CitySights LLC (through subsidiary City Sights Twin, LLC) formed Twin America, LLC (“Twin America”), a joint venture that combined their hop-on, hop-off bus tour operations in New York City.

    Defendants subsequently applied to the federal Surface Transportation Board (“STB”) for approval of the Twin America transaction, which would have conferred antitrust immunity. After more than two years of proceedings, the STB rejected the joint venture as anticompetitive. However, while Defendants ceased operating the nominal interstate service that had formed the basis for the STB's jurisdiction, they continued operating their hop-on, hop-off bus tour operations in New York City.

    In December 2012, the United States and the State of New York (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this civil antitrust action, alleging that the formation of Twin America substantially lessened competition in the market for hop-on, hop-off bus tours in New York City in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, and also violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, Section 340 of the Donnelly Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 340, and Section 63(12) of the New York Executive Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 63(12). The Complaint sought to remedy the harm to competition and disgorge the ill-gotten gains Defendants had obtained from operating Twin America in violation of the antitrust laws.

    In December 2014, the parties adjourned a February 2015 trial date to facilitate settlement discussions. These discussions culminated in the proposed Final Judgment, which was filed on March 16, 2015 (Dkt. No. 127-1).1 As required by the Tunney Act, the United States published the proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement in the Federal Register on March 27, 2015, 80 FR 16427 (Mar. 27, 2015), and caused to be published summaries of the terms of the proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement, together with directions for the submission of written comments relating to the proposed Final Judgment, in The Washington Post and the New York Daily News for seven days (March 24 through March 30, 2015). The 60-day period for public comments ended on May 29, 2015. The United States received one comment, which is described below and attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

    1 In October 2014, this Court approved Defendants' settlement of related class action lawsuits. See Order and Final Judgment Approving In Re NYC Bus Tour Antitrust Litigation Class Action Settlement, In re NYC Bus Tour Antitrust Litigation, No. 13-CV-0711 (ALC) (GWG) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2014) (Dkt. No. 122).

    II. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

    The Complaint alleged that the formation of Twin America had the purpose and effect of creating a monopoly in the hop-on, hop-off bus tour market in New York City. The joint venture eliminated substantial head-to-head competition between Coach and City Sights that had benefitted consumers in the form of discounts, increased product offerings, and service improvements. The joint venture also enabled Defendants to increase hop-on, hop-off bus tour prices by approximately 10%, resulting in immediate and continuing harm to consumers.

    The Complaint alleged that entry of new firms into the market or expansion of existing firms was unlikely to counteract the competitive harm caused by the formation and operation of Twin America. According to the Complaint, the primary barrier to entry was the difficulty of obtaining hop-on, hop-off bus stop authorizations from the New York City Department of Transportation (“NYCDOT”). Bus stop authorizations are required by NYCDOT for each location a tour operator wishes to load and unload passengers. Defendants obtained a robust portfolio of bus stop authorizations from NYCDOT several years ago, including authorizations at or very close to virtually all of Manhattan's major tourist attractions. Recent entrants, by contrast, were consistently unable to obtain competitive bus stop authorizations from NYCDOT at top tourist attractions because NYCDOT allocated such authorizations on a “first come, first served” basis and most competitive bus stop locations were already at capacity or otherwise unavailable. As a result, more than five years after Twin America's formation, the joint venture still dominated the market and Defendants had sustained their anticompetitive price increases.

    The proposed Final Judgment addresses the harm alleged in the Complaint by requiring Twin America to divest all of City Sights's bus stop authorizations in Manhattan to NYCDOT, the city agency charged with managing bus stop authorizations. The divestiture significantly eases the primary entry barrier alleged in the Complaint by increasing NYCDOT's inventory of bus stops, including for the locations most sought by recent entrants. City Sights's set of approximately 50 bus stops includes highly-coveted stops surrounding key tourist attractions such as Times Square, the Empire State Building, and Battery Park that are critical to operating a competitive hop-on, hop-off bus tour. The proposed Final Judgment also prohibits Defendants from applying for or obtaining any bus stop authorizations for hop-on, hop-off bus tours at the locations of the divested City Sights bus stop authorizations for five years, subject to limited exceptions. In compliance with the proposed Final Judgment, Defendants relinquished the City Sights bus stop authorizations to NYCDOT on April 30, 2015.

    The proposed Final Judgment also requires Defendants to pay $7.5 million in disgorgement to the United States and State of New York, which is on top of the payments made by Defendants to settle the class action.

    III. STANDARD OF JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER THE TUNNEY ACT

    The Tunney Act requires that proposed consent judgments in antitrust cases brought by the United States be subject to a 60-day public comment period, after which the court shall determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment “is in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1); see also United States v. Apple, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d 623, 630 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); United States v. Morgan Stanley, 881 F. Supp. 2d 563, 566 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). In making that determination, the court, in accordance with the statute as amended in 2004, is required to consider:

    (A) the competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public interest; and

    (B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.

    15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1); see also Apple, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 630-31; Morgan Stanley, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 566-67.

    In considering these statutory factors, the court's inquiry is necessarily a limited one. Apple, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 631; Morgan Stanley, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 567; United States v. Keyspan Corp., 763 F. Supp. 2d 633, 637 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). A court should consider, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations set forth in the Complaint, whether the decree is sufficiently clear, whether the enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether the decree may positively harm third parties. Apple, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 631; United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1458-62 (D.C. Cir. 1995). However, “[a] court must limit its review to the issues in the complaint and give `due respect to the [Government's] perception of . . . its case[.]' ” Morgan Stanley, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 567 (quoting Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461); see also Keyspan, 763 F. Supp. 2d at 638 (same); Apple, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 631 (“In most cases, the court is not permitted to reach beyond the complaint to evaluate claims that the government did not make.”) (internal quotation omitted).

    “The role of the court is not to determine whether the decree results in the array of rights and liabilities `that will best serve society, but only to ensure that the resulting settlement is within the reaches of the public interest.'” Apple, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 631 (quoting Keyspan, 763 F. Supp. 2d at 637) (emphasis in original); see also Morgan Stanley, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 567; Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460; United States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 462 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining court may not “engage in an unrestricted evaluation of what relief would best serve the public”); United States v. Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660, 666 (9th Cir. 1981) (noting that “court is required to determine not whether a particular decree is the one that will best serve society, but whether the settlement is within the reaches of the public interest”) (citations omitted).

    In determining whether a proposed settlement is in the public interest, “the court should be `deferential to the government's predictions as to the effect of the proposed remedies.' ” Apple, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 631 (quoting Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461); see also United States v. US Airways Grp., Inc., 38 F. Supp. 3d 69, 76 (D.D.C. 2014) (“must accord deference to the government's predictions about the efficacy of its remedies”) (quoting United States v. SBC Commc'ns, Inc., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1, 17 (D.D.C. 2007)); United States v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2003) (noting that the court should grant due respect to the United States' “prediction as to the effect of proposed remedies, its perception of the market structure, and its view of the nature of the case”).

    A court “is not permitted to reject the proposed remedies merely because the court believes other remedies are preferable.” Keyspan, 763 F. Supp. 2d at 637; see also Apple, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 631 (same); United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982) (stating that “proposed decree must be approved even if it falls short of the remedy the court would impose on its own, as long as it falls within the range of acceptability or is within the reaches of the public interest”) (citations and internal quotations omitted); United States v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., 605 F. Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky. 1985) (approving consent decree even though the court would have imposed greater remedy).

    The relevant inquiry “is whether the Government has established an ample `factual foundation for [its] decisions such that its conclusions regarding the proposed settlement are reasonable.' ” Apple, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 631 (quoting Keyspan, 763 F. Supp. 2d at 637-38); see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (assessing whether “the remedies [obtained in the decree are] so inconsonant with the allegations charged as to fall outside of the `reaches of the public interest.' ”); SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17 (explaining that courts “may not require that the remedies perfectly match the alleged violations”). Accordingly, the United States “need only provide a factual basis for concluding that the settlements are reasonably adequate remedies for the alleged harms.” SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17; see also Apple, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 631.

    In its 2004 amendments to the Tunney Act,2 Congress made clear its intent to preserve the practical benefits of using consent decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding the unambiguous instruction that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2); see also Apple, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 631 (“The Tunney Act allows, but does not require, the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing and to permit third parties to intervene.”). The procedure for the public-interest determination is left to the discretion of the court, with the recognition that the court's “scope of review remains sharply proscribed by precedent and the nature of Tunney Act proceedings.” SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11. “A court can make its public interest determination based on the competitive impact statement and response to public comments alone.” US Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76.

    2 The 2004 amendments substituted “shall” for “may” in directing relevant factors for courts to consider and amended the list of factors to focus on competitive considerations and to address potentially ambiguous judgment terms. Compare 15 U.S.C. 16(e) (2004), with 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1) (2006); see also SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11 (concluding that the 2004 amendments “effected minimal changes” to Tunney Act review).

    IV. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT

    The United States received one public comment, from Taxi Tours, Inc., doing business as BigBus (“Big Bus”). Big Bus entered the New York City hop-on, hop-off bus tour market in 2014 by acquiring an existing player, Big Taxi. The comment makes four principal points: (1) There should be additional remedies to facilitate competitors' ticket sales; (2) there should be a more specific process governing the allocation of bus stop authorizations; (3) the judgment should apply to Defendants' future affiliated entities; and (4) there should be a process for third parties to report violations of the Final Judgment. The United States respectfully responds to each point below.

    1. Divestiture of the City Sights bus stops is sufficient to remedy the harm alleged in the Complaint

    Big Bus's comment asserts that Defendants prevent competitors from selling tickets for hop-on, hop-off bus tours at or near certain key tourist attractions and proposes that the settlement be amended to ensure equal access to vendors to market and sell tickets from Defendants' competitors. Big Bus also expresses concerns regarding the conduct of City Experts, an affiliate of Defendants that offers tourists a variety of tours and attractions from concierge desks it operates at certain New York City hotels. Big Bus contends that because City Experts sells Defendants' hop-on, hop-off bus tours as part of its bundled tourism packages but not the hop-on, hop-off bus tours of Defendants' competitors, it “prevents the Defendants' competitors from effectively competing at the hotel and retail level.” Big Bus also complains that Twin America's employees prevent Big Bus staff from selling tickets by verbally and physically attacking them.

    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, review of a proposed Final Judgment is limited to the relationship of the remedy to the violations alleged in the Complaint. See Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459-61; Morgan Stanley, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 567; Keyspan, 763 F. Supp. 2d at 637-38; Apple, 889 F. Supp. 2d at 631. As described above, the Complaint alleged that the formation and operation of Twin America substantially lessened competition in the hop-on, hop-off bus tour market in New York City and identified potential entrants' inability to obtain bus stop authorizations at or sufficiently near top tourist attractions as the primary entry barrier. The proposed settlement addresses this entry barrier by requiring Twin America to divest all of the approximately 50 City Sights bus stop authorizations in Manhattan, including highly desirable stops at or near key tourist attractions that rivals have been consistently unable to obtain. By relinquishing all of the City Sights bus stops to NYCDOT, the proposed Final Judgment increases the available inventory of bus stops for which rivals can obtain the authorizations needed to effectively compete with Twin America.

    The Complaint did not allege that the conduct of Defendants' street sellers, its City Experts affiliate, or Defendants' sales practices otherwise served as a meaningful barrier to competition in the hop-on, hop-off bus tour market. Nor did the Complaint allege that the formation of the joint venture had an impact on these practices. Thus, the suggested additional provisions are unnecessary to address the competitive harm set forth in the Complaint.

    2. NYCDOT administers bus stop authorizations

    Big Bus argues that the proposed settlement should establish certain rules and processes related to the allocation and use of hop-on, hop-off bus stops. First, Big Bus asserts that the Final Judgment “should define a fair and monitored process of reassignment/reallocation of the divested [City Sights bus stop] authorizations to ensure that all competitors in the relevant market have an equal opportunity to apply for the divested stop authorizations.” Big Bus also claims that the Final Judgment should address how hop-on, hop-off bus stop authorizations would be handled in the event that Defendants acquired an existing hop-on, hop-off bus tour business.

    Procedures relating to the assignment and allocation of bus stop authorizations are within the jurisdiction of NYCDOT, the New York City agency charged with regulating and managing bus stops. See, e.g., NYC Charter § 2903 (giving NYCDOT control of and responsibility for “all those functions and operations of the city relating to transportation”); NYC Charter § 2903(a)(14) (empowering NYCDOT to enforce rules and regulations regarding vehicular traffic and the parking, standing, or stopping of vehicles on the city's streets); 34 RCNY § 4-10 (governing the operations of buses in the city and providing that bus operators, subject to certain exceptions, cannot “pick up or discharge passengers on a street except at a bus stop designated by the Commissioner [of NYCDOT] in writing.”). Pursuant to this authority, NYCDOT is best positioned to determine how to distribute the City Sights bus stops that have been relinquished pursuant to the proposed Final Judgment, taking into account the relevant factors just as it does with respect to bus stop allocations and authorizations generally.

    Given the established NYCDOT role in bus stop authorizations and allocations, the United States concluded that the facts of this case did not call for the proposed Final Judgment to establish any additional regulations or processes relating to the assignment or allocation of bus stop authorizations.

    3. The proposed settlement already covers affiliated entities

    Big Bus's comment raises a concern that two provisions of the proposed Final Judgment—having to do with notification to the government of certain transactions (Section X) and “reacquisition” of stops (Section XII)—would not apply to affiliated entities that Defendants might form after entry of the Final Judgment. Big Bus is incorrect. The proposed Final Judgment applies to Defendant entities as well as their “successors and assigns, and any subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures under their control, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees” (emphasis added). Therefore, any entities that Defendants form or acquire after entry of the Final Judgment will also be subject to it.

    4. Third parties may report violations of the Final Judgment to the United States or State of New York

    Finally, Big Bus argues that Section XIII of the proposed Final Judgment, which provides that the Court retains jurisdiction for ten years to monitor and enforce the terms of the Final Judgment, should also set forth “a process whereby third parties may directly report violations of the Final Judgment by the Defendants.” The United States does not believe this is necessary. Third parties can already report such violations to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice or the Antitrust Bureau of the New York Attorney General's Office. Plaintiffs will take the appropriate steps to respond to any reported violations, including by applying to the Court to enforce compliance or punish violations pursuant to Section XIII of the proposed Final Judgment.

    V. CONCLUSION

    After carefully reviewing the public comment submitted by Big Bus, the United States has determined that the proposed Final Judgment, as drafted, provides an effective and appropriate remedy for the antitrust violation alleged in the Complaint and is therefore in the public interest. The United States will move this Court to enter the proposed Final Judgment after the public comment and this Response have been published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: July 28, 2015 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Sarah Oldfield David E. Altschuler U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Transportation, Energy & Agriculture Section, 450 Fifth Street NW., Suite 8000, Washington, DC 20530, Telephone: (202) 305-8915, [email protected], [email protected]. Benjamin Sirota U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, New York Office, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3630, New York, NY 10278, Telephone: (212) 335-8056, [email protected]. Attorneys for Plaintiff United States EN07AU15.044 EN07AU15.045 EN07AU15.046 EN07AU15.047
    [FR Doc. 2015-19495 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Workforce Information Advisory Council AGENCY:

    Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Establishment of the Workforce Information Advisory Council and Solicitation of Nominations for Membership.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (Department) announces the establishment of the Workforce Information Advisory Council (WIAC), invites interested parties to submit nominations for individuals to serve on the WIAC, and announces the procedures for those nominations.

    DATES:

    Nominations for individuals to serve on the WIAC must be submitted (postmarked, if sending by mail; submitted electronically; or received, if hand delivered) by October 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit nominations and supporting materials described in this Federal Register Notice by any one of the following methods:

    Electronically: Submit nominations, including attachments, by email using the following address: [email protected] (use subject line “Nomination—Workforce Information Advisory Council”).

    Mail, express delivery, hand delivery, messenger, or courier service: Submit one copy of the nominations and supporting materials to the following address: Workforce Information Advisory Council Nominations, Office of Workforce Investment, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Room C-4526, Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries by hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service are accepted by the Office of Workforce Investment during the hours of 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, Monday through Friday. Due to security-related procedures, submissions by regular mail may experience significant delays.

    Facsimile: The Department will not accept nominations submitted by fax.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kimberly Vitelli, Division of National Programs, Tools, and Technical Assistance, Office of Workforce Investment (address above); (202) 693-3045; or use email address for the WIAC, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background and Authority

    Section 15 of the Wagner-Peyser Act, 29 U.S.C. 49l-2, as amended by section 308 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA), Public Law #113-128 requires the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to establish the WIAC.

    The statute, as amended, requires the Secretary, acting through the Commissioner of Labor Statistics and the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, to formally consult at least twice annually with the WIAC to address: (1) Evaluation and improvement of the nationwide workforce and labor market information system established by the Wagner-Peyser Act, and of the statewide systems that comprise the nationwide system, and (2) how the Department and the States will cooperate in the management of those systems. The Secretary, acting through the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), and in consultation with the WIAC and appropriate Federal agencies, must also develop a 2-year plan for management of the system, with subsequent updates every two years thereafter. The statute generally prescribes how the plan is to be developed and implemented, outlines the contents of the plan, and requires the Secretary to submit the plan to designated authorizing committees in the House and Senate.

    By law, the Secretary must “seek, review, and evaluate” recommendations from the WIAC, and respond to the recommendations in writing to the WIAC. The WIAC must make written recommendations to the Secretary on the evaluation and improvement of the workforce and labor market information system, including recommendations for the 2-year plan. The 2-year plan, in turn, must describe WIAC recommendations and the extent to which the plan incorporates them.

    The Department anticipates that the WIAC will accomplish its objectives by, for example: (1) Studying workforce and labor market information issues; (2) seeking and sharing information on innovative approaches, new technologies, and data to inform employment, skills training, and workforce and economic development decision making and policy; and (3) advising the Secretary on how the workforce and labor market information system can best support workforce development, planning, and program development.

    II. Structure

    The Wagner-Peyser Act at section 15(d)(2)(B), requires the WIAC to have representative 14 members, appointed by the Secretary, consisting of:

    (i) Four members who are representatives of lead State agencies with responsibility for workforce investment activities, or State agencies described in Wagner-Peyser Act section 4 (agency designated or authorized by Governor to cooperate with the Secretary), who have been nominated by such agencies or by a national organization that represents such agencies;

    (ii) Four members who are representatives of the State workforce and labor market information directors affiliated with the State agencies responsible for the management and oversight of the workforce and labor market information system as described in Wagner-Peyser Act section 15(e)(2), who have been nominated by the directors;

    (iii) One member who is a representative of providers of training services under WIOA section 122 (Identification of Eligible Providers of Training Services);

    (iv) One member who is a representative of economic development entities;

    (v) One member who is a representative of businesses, who has been nominated by national business organizations or trade associations;

    (vi) One member who is a representative of labor organizations, who has been nominated by a national labor federation;

    (vii) One member who is a representative of local workforce development boards, who has been nominated by a national organization representing such boards; and

    (viii) One member who is a representative of research entities that use workforce and labor market information.

    The Secretary must ensure that the membership of the WIAC is geographically diverse, and that no two members appointed under clauses (i), (ii), and (vii), above, represent the same State. Each member will be appointed for a term of three years, except that the initial terms for members may be one, two, or three years in order to establish a rotation in which one-third of the members are selected each year. The Secretary will not appoint a member for any more than two consecutive terms. Any member whom the Secretary appoints to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the predecessor's term will be appointed only for the remainder of that term. Members of the WIAC will serve on a voluntary and generally uncompensated basis, but will be reimbursed for travel expenses to attend WIAC meetings, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by the Federal travel regulations.

    III. Nominations Process

    Of the seven types of members listed above and at section 15(d)(2), the Secretary may consider all nominations for three types, but for the other four, the Secretary may only appoint individuals nominated by particular organizations. Type (i) requires nomination from “lead State agencies with responsibility for workforce investment activities” and type (ii) requires nomination from “State workforce and labor market information directors.” Type (v) requires nomination by national business organizations or trade associations and type (vi) requires nomination by a national labor federation. But for types (iii), (iv), and (vii), any interested person or organization may nominate one or more qualified individuals for membership. If you would like to nominate an individual or yourself for appointment to the WIAC, please submit, to one of the addresses listed below, the following information:

    • A copy of the nominee's biographical information and resume;

    • A cover letter that provides your reason(s) for nominating the individual, the constituency area that they represent (as outlined above in the WIAC membership identification discussion), and their particular expertise for contributing to the national policy discussion on: (1) The evaluation and improvement of the nationwide workforce and labor market information system and statewide systems that comprise the nationwide system, and (2) how the Department and the States will cooperate in the management of those systems, including programs that produce employment-related statistics and State and local workforce and labor market information; and

    • Contact information for the nominee (name, title, business address, business phone, fax number, and business email address).

    In addition, the cover letter must state that the nomination is being made in response to this Federal Register Notice and that the nominee (if nominating someone other than oneself) has agreed to be nominated and is willing to serve on the WIAC.

    Authority:

    Pursuant to the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.; Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Pub. L. 113-128; Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.

    Portia Wu, Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19385 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Statement of Recovery Forms ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Statement of Recovery Forms,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Public comments on the ICR are invited.

    DATES:

    The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before September 8, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201504-1240-001 (this link will only become active on the day following publication of this notice) or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to [email protected].

    Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OWCP, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected]. Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor—OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email: [email protected].

    For Further Information: Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to [email protected].

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the Statement of Recovery Forms information collection (Forms CA-1108 and CA-1122). The forms are used to obtain information about amounts received from a final judgments in litigation, or a settlement of the litigation, brought against a third party who is liable for damages due to a Federal employee comprehensive work-related injury. A Federal employee can sustain a work-related injury, for which he or she is eligible for compensation under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), under circumstances that also create a legal liability for some third party to pay damages for the same injury. When this occurs, the FECA authorizes the Secretary of Labor either to require the employee to assign his or her right of action to the United States or to prosecute the action. See 5 U.S.C. 8131. An employee receiving a judgment or a settlement of the action must reimburse the United States (U.S.) for past compensation payments; if there are surplus future compensation payments, the FECA provides that the employee must refund to the U.S. the amount of compensation paid by the U.S. and credit any surplus on future payments of compensation. See 5 U.S.C. 8132. This information collection has been classified as a revision, because the OWCP has updated Form CA-1108 so that it automatically calculates attorney fee and court cost information, provides information about the employee's net entitlement, clarifies the instructions, and includes the case file number; Form CA-1122 has been changed to include the case file number and employee's name. The FECA authorizes this information collection. See 5 U.S.C. 8121, 8132, 8149

    This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1240-0001. The current approval is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2015; however, the DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. New requirements would only take effect upon OMB approval. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2015 (80 FR 26955).

    Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1240-0001. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Agency: DOL-OWCP.

    Title of Collection: Statement of Recovery Forms.

    OMB Control Number: 1240-0001.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households and Private Sector—businesses or other for-profits.

    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 842.

    Total Estimated Number of Responses: 842.

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 419.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $219.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19457 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-CH-P
    NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES National Endowment for the Arts Arts Advisory Panel Meetings AGENCY:

    National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that one meeting of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference.

    DATES:

    All meetings are Eastern time and ending times are approximate:

    Literature (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

    Date and time: September 16, 2015; 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20506.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506; [email protected], or call 202/682-5691.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of February 15, 2012, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.

    Dated: August 4, 2015. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Panel Coordinator, National Endowment for the Arts.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19426 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science Board

    The National Science Board, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of meetings for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:

    DATE AND TIME:

    August 12, 2015 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. and August 13, 2015 from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (EDT).

    PLACE:

    These meetings will be held at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1235, Arlington, VA 22230. All visitors must contact the Board Office (call 703-292-7000 or send an email message to [email protected]) at least 24 hours prior to the meeting and provide name and organizational affiliation. Visitors must report to the NSF visitor desk located in the lobby at the 9th and N. Stuart Streets entrance to receive a visitor's badge.

    WEBCAST INFORMATION:

    Public meetings and public portions of meetings will be webcast. To view the meetings, go to www.tvworldwide.com/events/nsf/150812 and follow the instructions.

    UPDATES:

    Please refer to the National Science Board Web site for additional information. Meeting information and schedule updates (time, place, subject matter or status of meeting) may be found at http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/meetings/notices.jsp.

    AGENCY CONTACT:

    Ron Campbell, [email protected], (703) 292-7000.

    PUBLIC AFFAIRS CONTACT:

    Nadine Lymn, [email protected], (703) 292-2490.

    STATUS:

    Portions open; portions closed.

    Open Sessions August 12, 2015 8:00-8:35 a.m. (Plenary introduction, Chair and Director Reports) 8:35-9:40 a.m. (SEI) 9:40-10:00 a.m. (CSB) 10:00-10:20 a.m. (CPP) 1:00-1:30 p.m. (AO) 1:30-3:00 (CEH) August 13, 2015 8:00-8:45 a.m. (AB) 1:30-2:00 p.m. (Plenary) Closed Sessions August 12, 2015 10:35-11:45 a.m. (AO) 11:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m. (Plenary executive) 3:13-4:45 p.m. (CPP) August 13, 2015 8:45-9:50 a.m. (CSB) 10:20 a.m.-12:30 p.m. (Plenary) MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED:

    Tuesday, August 12, 2015 Plenary Board Meeting Open Session: 8:00-8:35 a.m. • Introduction and NSB Chair's Report • NSF Director's Report Committee on Science & Engineering Indicators (SEI) Open Session: 8:35-9:40 a.m. • Committee Chair's introduction • Approval of the May 2015 meeting minutes • Discussion of the Science and Engineering Indicators 2016 `Orange Book' and the remaining steps of the review process • Update on Digest and Overview • Update on `Digital Indicators' • Discussion of `Vignettes' • Chair's closing remarks Committee on Strategy and Budget (CSB) Open Session: 9:40-10:00 a.m. • Committee Chair's remarks • Approval of CSB open minutes for the May 2015 meeting • NSF FY 2016 budget update Committee on Programs and Plans (CPP) Open Session: 10:00-10:20 a.m. • Approval of open minutes of the August 2015 meeting • Committee Chair's remarks ○ CY 2015 schedule of planned action and information items; update for the August 2015 meeting ○ Update on IceCube Neutrino Observatory's M&O award ○ Information Item: National Center for Atmospheric Research/University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (NCAR/UCAR) strategic planning process ○ Information Item: Gemini Observatory Audit and Oversight Committee Closed Session: 10:35-11:45 a.m. • Approval of minutes of May 2015 closed meeting and August 5, 2015 closed teleconference • Committee Chair's opening remarks, including status report regarding the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) study • Office of the Inspector General FY 2017 budget request • Update and discussion of two-month salary support compensation policy Plenary Board Meeting Executive Closed Session: 11:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m. • NSB Chair's opening remarks • Approval of executive closed session minutes, May 2015 • Update from Nominations Committee • Board member proposal • Chair's closing remarks Committee on Audit & Oversight (AO) Open Session: 1:00-1:30 p.m. • Approval of May 2015 open meeting minutes • Committee Chair's opening remarks • Inspector General's update • Chief Financial Officer's update Committee on Education and Human Resources (CEH) Open Session: 1:30-3:00 p.m. • Committee Chair's opening remarks • Approval of CEH open minutes for the February 2015 meeting • Discussion: Grand challenges in STEM education Committee on Programs and Plans (CPP) Closed Session: 3:15-4:45 p.m. • Approval of closed CPP minutes for May 2015 meeting • Committee Chair's remarks • Information Item: Risks to Antarctic Programs • Information Item: CERN Agreement • Information Item: Update on National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) • Discussion: Recompetition Policy • Committee Chair's closing remarks Wednesday, August 13, 2015 Working Group on Administrative Burdens (AB) Open Session: 8:00-8:45 a.m. • Working Group Chair's opening remarks • Approval of prior minutes • NSF implementation of NSB recommendations Committee on Strategy and Budget (CSB) Closed Session: 8:45-9:50 a.m. • Committee Chair's remarks • Approval of CSB closed minutes for the May 2015 meeting and July 2015 teleconference • FY 2017 comprehensive budget approval Plenary Board Meeting Closed Session: 10:20 a.m.-12:30 p.m. • NSB Chair's opening remarks • NSF Director's remarks • Approval of closed session minutes, May 2015 • Discussion of risks to NSF • Closed committee reports • Action on CSB recommendation regarding comprehensive NSF FY 2017 budget • NSB Chair's remarks Plenary Board Meeting Open Session: 1:30-2:00 p.m. • NSB Chair's opening remarks • NSF Director's remarks • Approval of open session minutes, May 2015 • Approval of NSB meeting dates for CY 2016 • Open committee reports • Chairman's closing remarks, including discussion of and recommendations for structural changes to the ad hoc Honorary Awards Committee MEETING ADJOURNS:

    2:00 p.m.

    Kyscha Slater-Williams, Program Specialist, National Science Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19583 Filed 8-5-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Sunshine Act Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    9:30 a.m., Tuesday, August 11, 2015.

    PLACE:

    NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594.

    STATUS:

    The one item is open to the public.

    MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:

    8717—Highway Accident Report: Multivehicle Work Zone Crash on Interstate 95, Cranbury, New Jersey, June 7, 2014.

    NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:

    Telephone: (202) 314-6100.

    The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.

    Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle Hall at (202) 314-6305 or by email at [email protected] by Friday, August 7, 2015.

    The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at www.ntsb.gov.

    Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at www.ntsb.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Candi Bing at (202) 314-6403 or by email at [email protected]

    FOR MEDIA INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Keith Holloway (202) 314-6100 or by email at [email protected].

    Dated: Tuesday, August 4, 2015. Candi R. Bing, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19502 Filed 8-5-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-289; NRC-2015-0185] Exelon Generation Company, LLC;Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    License amendment application; o