Federal Register Vol. 80, No.158,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 158 (August 17, 2015)

Page Range49117-49886
FR Document

80_FR_158
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 49280 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 49200 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 49318 - Funding Availability Under Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) ProgramPDF
80 FR 49280 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Radiation Protection and Nuclear Materials; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 49196 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Research; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 49298 - Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property Release at Madras Municipal Airport, Madras, ORPDF
80 FR 49134 - Modification of Restricted Areas R-3804A, R-3804B, and R-3804C; Fort Polk, LAPDF
80 FR 49181 - Proposed Redesignation and Expansion of Restricted Area R-4403; Gainesville, MSPDF
80 FR 49298 - First Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 235 (SC 235)PDF
80 FR 49173 - Default Investment Fund ErrorsPDF
80 FR 49202 - Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and the Republic of Turkey: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value InvestigationsPDF
80 FR 49207 - Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From the Republic of Turkey: Initiation of Countervailing Duty InvestigationPDF
80 FR 49201 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 37-Orange County, NY; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Takasago International Corporation (USA); (Fragrance Compounds); Harriman, NYPDF
80 FR 49201 - Approval of Expansion of Subzone 92A; VT Halter Marine, Inc.; Pascagoula, MississippiPDF
80 FR 49201 - Foreign-Trade Zone 38-Spartanburg County, South Carolina; Application for Subzone; Springsteen Logistics, LLC; Rock Hill and Fort Lawn, South CarolinaPDF
80 FR 49138 - Program Fraud Civil RemediesPDF
80 FR 49265 - Outer Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, Oil and Gas Lease Sale, Central Planning Area Lease Sale 247PDF
80 FR 49177 - Abnormal Occurrence ReportsPDF
80 FR 49296 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Painting the Modern Garden: Monet to Matisse” ExhibitionPDF
80 FR 49296 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Joaquín Torres-García: The Arcadian Modern” ExhibitionPDF
80 FR 49168 - Lavandulyl Senecioate; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
80 FR 49155 - Safety Zone; U.S. Army Exercise, Des Plaines River, Channahon, ILPDF
80 FR 49223 - Twenty-Eighth Update of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance DocketPDF
80 FR 49193 - Relaxation of the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure Gasoline Volatility Standard for Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties, North CarolinaPDF
80 FR 49264 - Advisory Board for Exceptional ChildrenPDF
80 FR 49164 - Approval of North Carolina's Request To Relax the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure Gasoline Volatility Standard for Mecklenburg and Gaston CountiesPDF
80 FR 49297 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Request for Entry Into Children's Passport Issuance Alert ProgramPDF
80 FR 49190 - Withdrawal of Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; Contingency Measures for the 1997 PM2.5PDF
80 FR 49173 - Solicitation of Federal Civilian and Uniformed Service Personnel for Contributions to Private Voluntary Organizations; Delay of Effective Date and Addition of Comment PeriodPDF
80 FR 49246 - Rare Diseases: Common Issues in Drug Development; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 49269 - Notice of Statutory Reconsideration of Petitions for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 49186 - Periodic ReportingPDF
80 FR 49184 - Periodic ReportingPDF
80 FR 49236 - Sunshine Act; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 49240 - Botanical Drug Development; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 49244 - Endotoxin Testing Recommendations for Single-Use Intraocular Ophthalmic Devices; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 49244 - Qualification of Biomarker-Total Kidney Volume in Studies for Treatment of Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 49140 - Revision of Freedom of Information Act RegulationPDF
80 FR 49263 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Promise ZonesPDF
80 FR 49237 - Privacy Act of 1974: Report of New System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 49211 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Meeting of the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Advisory Panel; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 49171 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Small-Mesh Multispecies Fishery; Adjustment to the Northern Red Hake Inseason Possession LimitPDF
80 FR 49253 - National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 49252 - Notice of Kidney Interagency Coordinating Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 49250 - Notice of Interest Rate on Overdue DebtsPDF
80 FR 49267 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Request for Comments for 1029-0119PDF
80 FR 49268 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Oil Pollution ActPDF
80 FR 49311 - MCM Rail Services LLC, d/b/a Baltimore Industrial Railroad-Petition for Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Baltimore County, Md.PDF
80 FR 49252 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 49251 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 49252 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 49251 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 49210 - Marine Mammals; File No. 17952PDF
80 FR 49198 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Food Program and Reporting System (FPRS)PDF
80 FR 49212 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 49213 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 49213 - Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
80 FR 49199 - Gallatin Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 49221 - Silver State Solar Power South, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 49220 - Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 49217 - Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Equitrans Expansion Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental IssuesPDF
80 FR 49221 - Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Access South, Adair Southwest, and Lebanon Extension Projects and Request for Comments on Environmental IssuesPDF
80 FR 49220 - Saddle Butte Rockies Midstream, LLC; Notice of Request for WaiverPDF
80 FR 49219 - Oildale Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 49216 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 49200 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility to Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 49215 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; “Patents for Humanity Program”PDF
80 FR 49214 - Invention Promoters/Promotion Firms ComplaintsPDF
80 FR 49236 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
80 FR 49312 - Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer ProtectionPDF
80 FR 49302 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
80 FR 49299 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
80 FR 49301 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; NarcolepsyPDF
80 FR 49304 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
80 FR 49299 - Buy America Waiver NotificationPDF
80 FR 49157 - Animals on VA PropertyPDF
80 FR 49267 - Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from China and Mexico; Correction to Notice of Institution of Five-Year ReviewsPDF
80 FR 49235 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 49202 - Transportation and Related Equipment, Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 49202 - Materials Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 49136 - Medical Devices; Neurological Devices; Classification of the Computerized Cognitive Assessment AidPDF
80 FR 49236 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 49247 - Compounding Animal Drugs From Bulk Drug Substances; Draft Guidance for Industry; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
80 FR 49296 - Regulatory Fairness Hearing; Region IX-Springerville, ArizonaPDF
80 FR 49283 - Victory NextShares Trust, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 49285 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 49281 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Holdings By the iShares Interest Rate Hedged Corporate Bond ETF and iShares Interest Rate Hedged High Yield Bond ETFPDF
80 FR 49288 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposal To List and Trade Shares of the ProShares Managed Futures Strategy ETF of the ProShares Trust Under BATS Rule 14.11 on BATS Exchange, Inc.PDF
80 FR 49286 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify NASDAQ Rule 7051 Fees Relating to Pricing for Direct Circuit ConnectionsPDF
80 FR 49285 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change Amending the Eighth Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of the Exchange To Establish a Regulatory Oversight Committee as a Committee of the Board of Directors of the Exchange and Make Certain Conforming Amendments to Exchange RulesPDF
80 FR 49253 - Approval of Freeboard International as a Commercial GaugerPDF
80 FR 49279 - Proposed Extension of Existing Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 49278 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Cadmium in Construction StandardPDF
80 FR 49216 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 49254 - Accreditation and Approval of Saybolt LP as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
80 FR 49254 - Accreditation and Approval of AmSpec Services, LLC, as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
80 FR 49297 - Government/Industry Aeronautical Charting Forum MeetingPDF
80 FR 49262 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, Form I-140; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
80 FR 49117 - Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act, and Government in the Sunshine Act ProceduresPDF
80 FR 49264 - Revision of Agency Information Collection for the Tribal Reassumption of Jurisdiction Over Child Custody ProceedingsPDF
80 FR 49250 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 49242 - Disease Natural History Database Development-(U24)PDF
80 FR 49243 - Scientific Inquiry Into How Mobile Health and Social Data Sources May Inform Medical Product Safety and Efficacy; Public Workshop; Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 49268 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Approval of an Extension of a Currently Approved Collection; Request To Change III/NGI Base Identifier(s) (1-542)PDF
80 FR 49248 - Physiological Closed-Loop Controlled Devices; Public Workshop; Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 49152 - Safety Zone, James River; Newport News, VAPDF
80 FR 49312 - Sentencing Guidelines for United States CourtsPDF
80 FR 49314 - Sentencing Guidelines for United States CourtsPDF
80 FR 49187 - Determination of Attainment; Texas; Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1997 Ozone Nonattainment Area; Determination of Attainment of the 1997 Ozone StandardPDF
80 FR 49127 - Compliance Bulletin-Amendment to the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure ActPDF
80 FR 49127 - Airworthiness Directives; REIMS AVIATION S.A. AirplanesPDF
80 FR 49130 - Airworthiness Directives; British Aerospace Regional Aircraft AirplanesPDF
80 FR 49132 - Airworthiness Directives; British Aerospace Regional Aircraft AirplanesPDF
80 FR 49256 - Privacy Act of 1974; Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS/CBP-001, Import Information System, System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 49175 - Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security DHS/CBP-001, Import Information System, System of Records, System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 49845 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Brickellia mosieri (Florida Brickell-bush) and Linum carteri var. carteri (Carter's Small-flowered Flax)PDF
80 FR 49325 - Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2016 Rates; Revisions of Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers, Including Changes Related to the Electronic Health Record Incentive Program; Extensions of the Medicare-Dependent, Small Rural Hospital Program and the Low-Volume Payment Adjustment for HospitalsPDF
80 FR 49255 - Notice of Adjustment of Legitimate Amount in Dispute for the Dispute Resolution Pilot Program for Public Assistance AppealsPDF

Issue

80 158 Monday, August 17, 2015 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Forest Service

Broadcasting Broadcasting Board of Governors NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 49200 2015-20323 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection RULES Compliance Bulletins: Amendment to the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 49127 2015-19998 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49236-49237 2015-20191 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services RULES Medicare Program: Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2016 Rates; Revisions of Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers, etc., 49326-49843 2015-19049 NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 49237-49240 2015-20224 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: James River, Newport News, VA, 49152-49155 2015-20115 U.S. Army Exercise, Des Plaines River, Channahon, IL, 49155-49157 2015-20251 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Development Administration

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 49216 2015-20150 Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Trade Adjustment Assistance; Petitions, 49200-49201 2015-20194 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Statutory Reconsideration of Petitions for Trade Adjustment Assistance, 49269-49278 2015-20234 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Federal Reid Vapor Pressure Gasoline Volatility Standard: North Carolina; Approval of Request to Relax Standard for Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties, 49164-49168 2015-20243 Tolerance Exemptions: Lavandulyl Senecioate, 49168-49171 2015-20257 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; San Joaquin Valley; Contingency Measures for the 1997 PM2.5 Standards; Withdrawal, 49190-49193 2015-20240 Texas; Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1997 Ozone Nonattainment Area; Determination of Attainment of the 1997 Ozone Standard, 49187-49190 2015-20026 Federal Reid Vapor Pressure Gasoline Volatility Standard: North Carolina; Approval of Request to Relax Standard for Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties, 49193-49196 2015-20245 NOTICES Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket, 49223-49235 2015-20248 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Airplanes, 2015-19776 49130-49134 2015-19778 REIMS AVIATION S.A. Airplanes, 49127-49129 2015-19901 Modifications of Restricted Areas: Restricted Areas R-3804A, R-3804B, and R-3804C, Ft. Polk, LA, 49134-49136 2015-20286 PROPOSED RULES Redesignations and Expansions of Restricted Areas: R-4403, Gainesville, MS, 49181-49184 2015-20277 NOTICES Meetings: Government/Industry Aeronautical Charting Forum, 49297-49298 2015-20146 RTCA Special Committee 235, 49298 2015-20276 Surplus Property Releases: Madras Municipal Airport, Madras, OR, 49298-49299 2015-20289 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Adjustment of Legitimate Amount in Dispute for the Dispute Resolution Pilot Program for Public Assistance Appeals, 49255 2015-17068 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC, 49220 2015-20200 Combined Filings, 49216-49217 2015-20195 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Planned Access South, Adair Southwest, and Lebanon Extension Projects, 49221-49223 2015-20198 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Equitrans, LP; Planned Equitrans Expansion Project, 49217-49219 2015-20199 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Oildale Energy, LLC, 49219-49220 2015-20196 Silver State Solar Power South, LLC, 49221 2015-20201 Requests for Waivers: Saddle Butte Rockies Midstream, LLC, 49220-49221 2015-20197 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Buy America Waivers, 49299 2015-20183 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes Mellitus, 2015-20186 49299-49301, 49304-49311 2015-20188 Narcolepsy, 49301-49302 2015-20187 Vision, 49302-49304 2015-20189 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 49236 2015-20176 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; Correction, 49235-49236 2015-20180 Federal Retirement Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board PROPOSED RULES Default Investment Fund Errors, 49173-49175 2015-20273 NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 49236 2015-20231 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designation of Critical Habitat for Brickellia mosieri (Florida Brickell-bush) and Linum carteri var. carteri (Carter's Small-flowered Flax), 49846-49886 2015-19533 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Medical Devices: Neurological Devices; Computerized Cognitive Assessment Aid; Classification, 49136-49138 2015-20177 NOTICES Funding Availability: Disease Natural History Database Development, 49242-49243 2015-20130 Guidance: Botanical Drug Development, 49240-49242 2015-20230 Compounding Animal Drugs from Bulk Drug Substances, 49247-49248 2015-20174 Endotoxin Testing Recommendations for Single-Use Intraocular Ophthalmic Devices, 49244 2015-20229 Qualification of Biomarker--Total Kidney Volume in Studies for Treatment of Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease Availability, 49244-49246 2015-20228 Rare Diseases--Common Issues in Drug Development; Availability, 49246-49247 2015-20235 Meetings: Physiological Closed-Loop Controlled Devices; Public Workshop, 49248-49250 2015-20127 Scientific Inquiry Into How Mobile Health and Social Data Sources May Inform Medical Product Safety and Efficacy; Public Workshop, 49243 2015-20129 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Food Program and Reporting System, 49198-49199 2015-20208 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Applications for Subzone Expansion: Subzone 92A, VT Halter Marine, Inc., Pascagoula, MS, 49201 2015-20268 Applications for Subzone Status: Foreign-Trade Zone 38, Springsteen Logistics, LLC, Rock Hill and Fort Lawn, SC, 49201 2015-20264 Production Activities: Takasago International Corp., Foreign-Trade Zone 37, Harriman, NY, 49201-49202 2015-20269 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Gallatin Resource Advisory Committee, 49199-49200 2015-20202 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Interest Rate on Overdue Debts, 49250-49251 2015-20217
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49250 2015-20135 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

PROPOSED RULES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 49175-49177 2015-19726 NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 49256-49262 2015-19731
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department RULES Freedom of Information Act; Revisions, 49140-49152 2015-20226 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Promise Zones, 49263-49264 2015-20225 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Tribal Reassumption of Jurisdiction Over Child Custody Proceedings, 49264-49265 2015-20139 Meetings: Advisory Board for Exceptional Children, 49264 2015-20244 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Materials Technical Advisory Committee, 49202 2015-20178 Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee, 49202 2015-20179 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

See

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Turkey, 49207-49210 2015-20270 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and the Republic of Turkey, 49202-49207 2015-20271 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from China and Mexico; Institution of Five-Year Reviews; Correction, 49267 2015-20181 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Request to Change III/NGI Base Identifier(s), 49268 2015-20128 Proposed Consent Decrees under the Oil Pollution Act, 49268-49269 2015-20215 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Workers Compensation Programs Office

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Cadmium in Construction Standard, 49278-49279 2015-20151
National Council National Council on Disability RULES Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act, and Government in the Sunshine Act Procedures, 49117-49127 2015-20140 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 2015-20212 49251-49253 2015-20213 Kidney Interagency Coordinating Committee, 49252 2015-20219 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 49252 2015-20211 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 49251 2015-20210 National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, 49253 2015-20220 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Small-Mesh Multispecies Fishery; Adjustment to the Northern Red Hake Inseason Possession Limit, 49171-49172 2015-20221 PROPOSED RULES Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Marine Mammals Incidental to Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Research; Correction, 49196-49197 2015-20302 NOTICES Meetings: Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Advisory Panel; Correction, 49211 2015-20222 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 49212-49214 2015-20204 2015-20206 2015-20207 Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 49213 2015-20203 Permits: Marine Mammals; File No. 17952, 49210-49211 2015-20209 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Policy Statements: Abnormal Occurrence Reports, 49177-49181 2015-20260 NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Radiation Protection and Nuclear Materials, 49280 2015-20313 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 49280-49281 2015-20361 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Outer Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, Oil and Gas Lease Sale, Central Planning Area Lease Sale 247, 49265-49266 2015-20262 Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Invention Promoters/Promotion Firms Complaints, 49214-49215 2015-20192 Patents for Humanity Program, 49215-49216 2015-20193 Personnel Personnel Management Office PROPOSED RULES Solicitation of Federal Civilian and Uniformed Service Personnel for Contributions to Private Voluntary Organizations; Delay of Effective Date, 49173 2015-20238 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Periodic Reporting, 49184-49186 2015-20232 2015-20233 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49285-49286 2015-20159 Application Exemptions: Victory NextShares Trust, et al., 49283-49285 2015-20160 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 49288-49296 2015-20157 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 49286-49287 2015-20155 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 49285 2015-20154 NYSE Arca, Inc., 49281-49283 2015-20158 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Meetings: Regulatory Fairness Hearing, Region IX, Springerville, AZ, 49296 2015-20169 State Department State Department RULES Program Fraud Civil Remedies, 49138-49140 2015-20263 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Request for Entry Into Children's Passport Issuance Alert Program, 49297 2015-20241 Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Joaquin Torres-Garcia--The Arcadian Modern, 49296-49297 2015-20258 Painting the Modern Garden--Monet to Matisse, 49296 2015-20259 Surface Mining Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49267 2015-20216 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Discontinuance of Service Exemptions: MCM Rail Services, LLC, d/b/a Baltimore Industrial Railroad, Baltimore County, MD, 49311-49312 2015-20214 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection, 49312 2015-20190
U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, 49262-49263 2015-20143 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Commercial Gaugers and Laboratories; Accreditations and Approvals: AmSpec Services, LLC, Davie, FL, 49254-49255 2015-20148 Saybolt LP, Carson, CA, 49254 2015-20149 Commercial Gaugers; Approvals: Freeboard International, Linden, NJ, 49253-49254 2015-20153 U.S. Sentencing United States Sentencing Commission NOTICES Sentencing Guidelines for U.S. Courts, 49312-49318 2015-20107 2015-20108 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department RULES Animals on VA Property, 49157-49164 2015-20182 NOTICES Funding Availability: Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program, 49318-49323 2015-20319 Workers' Workers Compensation Programs Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49279-49280 2015-20152 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 49326-49843 2015-19049 Part III Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 49846-49886 2015-19533 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.

80 158 Monday, August 17, 2015 Rules and Regulations NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY 5 CFR Chapter C RIN 3480-AA00 Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act, and Government in the Sunshine Act Procedures AGENCY:

National Council on Disability.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The National Council on Disability is finalizing regulations which implement the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, and the Government in the Sunshine Act. This rule describes the procedures for members of the public to request access to records. In addition, this document also describes procedures for the Council's responses to these requests, including the timeframe for response and applicable fees. These rules should be read in conjunction with the text of the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, the Government in the Sunshine Act, and the Uniform Freedom of Information Fee Schedule and Guidelines published by the Office of Management and Budget.

DATES:

Effective September 16, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joan Durocher, General Counsel, National Council on Disability, at 202-272-2004 or [email protected] To ensure proper handling, please include the docket number on your correspondence.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

These regulations in a proposed rule were published for public comment in the Federal Register on June 11, 2015 (80 FR 33199), the comment period ended on August 10, 2015, and one commenter provided input. He is a private citizen and submitted his comments by mail.

I. Background

The commenter provided various comments on the proposed Freedom of Information Act procedures at part 10000. First, the commenter recommended that § 10000.6(b) should state that responses to a FOIA request should include the case number and the date of the original request. Reasoning that the absence of this information can cause confusion and wasted effort should an administrative appeal be necessary. We agree with the suggestion and § 10000.6(b) has been modified to reflect that correspondence responding to FOIA requests should include the case number and date of the original request.

In addition, the commenter had several comments about the proposed § 10000.10 concerning fees. The commenter stated that a page duplication fee of $.10 per page should be identified. The commenter states that the fee is supposed to be a proxy based on actual duplication costs. The commenter states actual duplication costs are substantially less than $.10 per page, but the standard rate for most agencies is $.10. FOIA regulation 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(ii) states fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document search, duplication, and review. No specific fee scale was applied in the regulation, the Council does not intend to cite a specific cost for duplication. Not having specific rates listed in the regulation allows the Council to adjust costs accordingly when a price fluctuation exists which allows the Council flexibility to adjust rates without first necessitating a change in the regulation.

In addition, the commenter states in § 10000.10(c) the reference to the operating costs for a central processing unit is obsolete as well as the reference to the salary of the operators performing the search. FOIA regulation 28 CFR 16.10(a)(2) defines direct costs as expenses that an agency incurs in searching for and duplicating (and, in the case of commercial use requests, reviewing) records in order to respond to a FOIA request. For example, direct costs include the salary of the employee performing the work (i.e., the basic rate of pay for the employee, plus 16 percent of that rate to cover benefits) and the cost of operating computers and other electronic equipment, such as photocopiers and scanners. The Council did not find it necessary to make changes to the section, the Council will adhere to all applicable statutes when assessing direct costs.

The commenter states in § 100000.10(d) the rules are ambiguous and should clearly state unambiguously that noncommercial requesters are not charged review fees. The commenter added that OMB guidance is quite clear that noncommercial requesters are not charged. The commenter also stated charging review fees following the results of an appeal in which the written initial determination was reversed or remanded is procedurally unfair and could impose needless hurdles. Council maintains there is sufficient clarity in the current language “review fees shall be charged for requesters who make commercial use requests”. As to the assessment of review fees post an appeal, Council followed OMB guidelines when proposing review fees be assessed. We appreciate the commenter's perspective, the Council has decided to retain the language which mirrors the FOIA statute. Such fees are allowable under the FOIA regulations and therefore current language will remain unchanged.

Additionally, in § 10000.10(e) the commenter suggests changing the wording of “statutory entitlements of 100 pages of duplication . . .” To “statutory entitlements of 100 pages of duplication or equivalent”, so that other types of duplicated media can be accommodated. With the ever-changing nature in which data is collected the Council agrees with the commenter and will add specific language to the final rule indicating that duplication costs equivalent of 100 pages in print or equivalent will be processed at no charge.

II. Regulatory Analysis and Notices Executive Order 12866

This final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” within the meaning of Executive Order 12866. The economic impact of these regulations should be minimal, therefore, further economic evaluation is not necessary.

Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions. The Council considered the effects on this final rule on small entities and certifies that these final rules will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, requires each agency to assess the effects of its regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. Agencies must prepare a written statement of economic and regulatory alternatives anytime a proposed or final rule imposes a new or additional enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal government or the private sector that causes those entities to spend, in aggregate, $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year (defined in UMRA as a “federal mandate”). The Council determined that such a written statement is not required in connection with these final rules because they will not impose a federal mandate, as defined in UMRA.

National Environmental Policy Act

The Council analyzed this action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and determined that it would not significantly affect the environment; therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. This final rule does not include an information collection for purposes of the PRA.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and the Council determined that it does not have sufficient implications for federalism to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

List of Subjects 5 CFR Part 10000

Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Confidential business information, Privacy.

5 CFR Part 10001

Administrative practice and procedure, Privacy.

5 CFR Part 10002

Administrative practice and procedure, Public availability of information, Meetings.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Council amends title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, by establishing chapter C, consisting of parts 10000-10049, to read as follows:

Chapter C—National Council On Disability PART 10000—PROCEDURES FOR DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT PART 10001—IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 PART 10002—IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE ACT PARTS 10003-10049 [RESERVED] PART 10000—PROCEDURES FOR DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT Sec. 10000.1 Purpose and scope. 10000.2 Definitions. 10000.3 Availability of records. 10000.4 Categories of exemptions. 10000.5 Requests for records. 10000.6 Responsibility for responding to requests. 10000.7 Administrative appeals. 10000.8 Timeframe for Council's response to a FOIA request or administrative appeal. 10000.9 Business information. 10000.10 Fees. Authority:

5 U.S.C. 552, as amended; E.O. 12600, 52 FR 23781, 3 CFR 1987, 1987 Comp., p. 235; 3 CFR 235.

§ 10000.1 Purpose and scope.

The regulations in this part implement the provisions of the FOIA.

§ 10000.2 Definitions.

The following definitions apply to this part:

Chairperson means the Chairperson of the Council, as appointed by the President, or any person to whom the Council has delegated authority for the matter concerned.

Chief FOIA Officer means the senior official to whom the Council delegated responsibility for efficient and appropriate compliance with the FOIA, currently delegated to the General Counsel.

Commercial use request means a FOIA request from or on behalf of a requester that seeks information for a use or purpose that furthers their commercial, trade, or profit interests, including pursuit of those interests through litigation.

Confidential business information means trade secrets or confidential or privileged commercial or financial information submitted to the Council by a person that may be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the FOIA.

Council means the National Council on Disability, established by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 780 et seq.), as amended, and amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (Pub. L. 113-128) in 2014.

Direct costs are those expenses that an agency incurs in searching for and duplicating (and, in the case of commercial use requests, reviewing) records in order to respond to a FOIA request. For example, direct costs include the salary of the employee performing the work (i.e., the basic rate of pay for the employee, plus 16 percent of that rate to cover benefits) and the cost of operating computers and other electronic equipment, such as photocopiers and scanners. Direct costs do not include overhead expenses such as the costs of space, and of heating or lighting a facility.

Educational institution means a preschool, a public or private elementary or secondary school, an institution of undergraduate or graduate higher education, an institution of professional education, or an institution of vocational education, which operates a program or programs of scholarly research. A requester in this fee category must show that the request is authorized by, and is made under the auspices of, an educational institution and that the records are not sought for a commercial use, but rather are sought to further scholarly research. To fall within this fee category, the request must serve the scholarly research goals of the institution rather than an individual research goal.

(1) Example 1.

A request from a professor of geology at a university for records relating to soil erosion, written on letterhead of the Department of Geology, would be presumed to be from an educational institution.

(2) Example 2.

A request from the same professor of geology seeking drug information from the Food and Drug Administration in furtherance of a murder mystery he is writing would not be presumed to be an institutional request, regardless of whether it was written on institutional stationery.

(3) Example 3.

A student who makes a request in furtherance of the completion of a course of instruction would be presumed to be carrying out an individual research goal, rather than a scholarly research goal of the institution and would not qualify as part of this fee category.

Fee waiver means the waiver or reduction of fees if a requester can demonstrate meeting the statutory standard that the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.

FOIA means the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended. The FOIA applies to requests for agency records.

FOIA Officer means the individual to whom the Council has delegated authority to carry out the Council's day-to-day FOIA administration, currently delegated to the Council's Attorney Advisor.

FOIA Public Liaison means the individual designated by the Chairperson to assist FOIA requesters with concerns about the Council's processing of their FOIA request, including assistance in resolving disputes, currently delegated to the Council's Attorney Advisor.

Non-commercial scientific institution means an organization operated solely for the purpose of conducting scientific research, the results of which are not intended to promote any product or research, and not operated on a commercial basis.

Person includes an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or public or private organization other than an agency.

Record means any writing, drawing, map, recording, diskette, DVD, CD-ROM, tape, film, photograph, or other documentary material, regardless of medium, by which information is preserved, including documentary material stored electronically.

Redact means delete or mark over.

Representative of the news media is any person or entity organized and operated to publish or broadcast news to the public that actively gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience. The term “news” means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public. Examples of news media entities include television or radio stations that broadcast “news” to the public at large and publishers of periodicals that disseminate “news” and make their products available through a variety of means to the general public, including news organizations that disseminate solely on the Internet. A request for records supporting the news-dissemination function of the requester shall not be considered to be for a commercial use. “Freelance” journalists who demonstrate a solid basis for expecting publication through a news media entity shall be considered as a representative of the news media. A publishing contract would provide the clearest evidence that publication is expected; however, components shall also consider a requester's past publication record in making this determination.

Requester category means one of the three categories defined by the Uniform Freedom of Information Fee Schedule and Guidelines published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Fee Guidelines) in which requesters will be placed for the purpose of determining what if any fees for search, review, or duplication may be assessed. They are:

(1) Commercial requestors;

(2) Non-commercial scientific or educational institutions or representatives of the news media; and

(3) All other requestors.

Submitter means any person or entity from whom the Council obtains confidential or privileged business information, directly or indirectly.

Unusual circumstances exist when:

(1) The need to search for and collect the requested records from physically separate facilities;

(2) The need to search for, collect and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records which are demanded in a single request; or

(3) The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request.

§ 10000.3 Availability of records.

Records that are required by the FOIA to be made available for public inspection and copying may be accessed through the Agency's Web site at www.ncd.gov. The Council is responsible for determining which of its records are required to be made publicly available, as well as identifying additional records of interest to the public that are appropriate for public disclosure, and for posting and indexing such records. The Council shall ensure that its Web site of posted records and indices is reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis. The Council's FOIA Public Liaison can assist individuals in locating records particular to a component.

§ 10000.4 Categories of exemptions.

(a) The FOIA does not require disclosure of matters that are:

(1) Specifically authorized under criteria established by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are, in fact, properly classified under executive order;

(2) Related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the Council;

(3) Specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), provided that such statute:

(i)(A) Requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; or

(B) Establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; and

(ii) If enacted after October 28, 2009, specifically cites to Exemption 3 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3);

(4) Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

(5) Inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters, which would not be available at law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the Council;

(6) Personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(7) Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information:

(i) Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings;

(ii) Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication;

(iii) Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(iv) Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a state, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution that furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source;

(v) Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law; or

(vi) Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.

(8) Contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or

(9) Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.

§ 10000.5 Request for records.

(a) You may request copies of records under this part by email to [email protected] or in writing addressed to FOIA Officer, National Council on Disability, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004.

(b) Your request shall reasonably describe the records sought with sufficient specificity, and when possible, include names, dates, and subject matter, in order to permit the FOIA Officer to locate the records with a reasonable amount of effort. If the FOIA Officer cannot locate responsive records based on your written description, you will be notified and advised that further identifying information is necessary before the request can be fulfilled. Although requests are considered either FOIA or Privacy Act requests, the Council processes requests for records in accordance with both laws so as to provide the greatest degree of lawful access while safeguarding an individual's personal privacy.

(c) Your request should specify your preferred form or format (including electronic formats) for the records you seek. We will accommodate your request if the record is readily available in that form or format. When you do not specify the form or format of the response, we will provide responsive records in the form or format most convenient to us.

§ 10000.6 Responsibility for responding to requests.

(a) In general. The Council delegates authority to grant or deny FOIA requests in whole or in part to the Chief FOIA Officer. When conducting a search for responsive records, the FOIA Officer generally will search for records in existence on the date of the search. If another date is used, the FOIA Officer shall inform the requester of the date used.

(b) Responses. The Chief FOIA Officer will notify you of his or her determination to grant or deny your FOIA request in the time frame stated in § 10000.8. The Council will release reasonably segregable non-exempt information. For any adverse determination, including those regarding any disputed fee matter; a denial of a request for a fee waiver; or a determination to withhold a record, in whole or in part, that a record does not exist or cannot be located; or to deny a request for expedited processing; the notice shall include the following information:

(1) FOIA case number and date of the original request;

(2) The name(s) of any person responsible for the determination to deny the request in whole or in part;

(3) A brief statement of the reason(s) for the denial, including any FOIA exemption applied in denying the request. The FOIA Officer will indicate, if technically feasible, the amount of information deleted and the exemption under which a deletion is made on the released portion of the record, unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption;

(4) An estimate of the volume of information withheld, if applicable. This estimate does not need to be provided if it is ascertainable based on redactions in partially disclosed records or if the disclosure of the estimate would harm an interest protected by an applicable FOIA exemption; and

(5) A statement that the adverse determination may be appealed and a description of the requirements for an appeal under § 10000.7.

(c) Consultation, referral, and coordination. When reviewing records located by the Council in response to a request, the Council shall determine whether another agency of the Federal Government is better able to determine whether the record is exempt from disclosure under the FOIA and, if so, whether it should be released as a matter of discretion. As to any such record, the Council shall proceed in one of the following ways:

(1) Consultation. When records originated with the Council, but contain within them information of interest to another agency, the Council should typically consult with that other agency prior to making a release determination.

(2) Referral. (i) When the Council believes that a different agency is best able to determine whether to disclose the record, the Council typically should refer the responsibility for responding to the request regarding that record, as long as the referral is to an agency that is subject to the FOIA. Ordinarily, the agency that originated the record will be presumed to be best able to make the disclosure determination. However, if the Council and the originating agency jointly agree that the former is in the best position to respond regarding the record, then the record may be handled as a consultation.

(ii) Whenever the Council refers any part of the responsibility for responding to a request to another agency, it shall document the referral, maintain a copy of the record that it refers, and notify the requester of the referral and inform the requester of the name(s) of the agency to which the record was referred, including that agency's FOIA contact information.

(3) Coordination. The standard referral procedure is not appropriate where disclosure of the identity of the agency to which the referral would be made could harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption, such as the exemptions that protect personal privacy or national security interests. For example, if the Council responding to a request for records on a living third party locates within its files records originating with a law enforcement agency, and if the existence of that law enforcement interest in the third party was not publicly known, then to disclose that law enforcement interest could cause an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the third party. Similarly, if the Council locates within its files material originating with an Intelligence Community agency, and the involvement of that agency in the matter is classified and not publicly acknowledged, then to disclose or give attribution to the involvement of that Intelligence Community agency could cause national security harms. In such instances, in order to avoid harm to an interest protected by an applicable exemption, the Council should coordinate with the originating agency to seek its views on the disclosability of the record. The release determination for the record that is the subject of the coordination should then be conveyed to the requester by the Council.

§ 10000.7 Administrative appeals.

(a) You may appeal an adverse determination related to your FOIA request, or the Council's failure to respond to your FOIA request within the prescribed time limits, to the Executive Director, National Council on Disability, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004.

(b) Your appeal must be in writing and must be postmarked or electronically received by the Executive Director within 60 days of the date of the letter denying your request, in whole or in part. For the most expeditious handling, your appeal letter and envelope should be marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal” and reference the request number.

(c) The Executive Director shall respond to all administrative appeals in writing and within the time frame stated in § 10000.8(d). If the decision affirms, in whole or in part, the Chief FOIA Officer's determination, the letter shall contain a statement of the reasons for the affirmance, including any FOIA exemption(s) applied, and will inform you of the FOIA's provisions for court review. If the Executive Director reverses or modifies the Chief FOIA Officer's determination, in whole or in part, you will be notified in writing and your request will be reprocessed in accordance with that decision. The Council may work with Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) to resolve disputes between FOIA requestors and the Council. A requester may also contact OGIS in the following ways: Via mail to OGIS, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road—OGIS, College Park, MD 20740 (ogis.archives.gov), via email at [email protected], or via the telephone at 202-741-5770 or 877-684-6448. Facsimile is also available at 202-741-5769.

§ 10000.8 Timeframe for Council's response to a FOIA request or administrative appeal.

(a) In general. The Council ordinarily shall respond to requests according to their order of receipt.

(b) Multi-track processing. (1) The Council may use two or more processing tracks by distinguishing between simple and more complex requests based on the amount of work and/or time needed to process the request, including through limits based on the number of pages involved. If the Council does so, it shall advise requesters in its slower track(s) of the limits of its faster track(s).

(2) Using multitrack processing, the Council may provide requesters in its slower track(s) with an opportunity to limit the scope of their requests in order to qualify for faster processing within the specified limits of the Council's faster track(s). In doing so, the Council will contact the requester by telephone, letter, or email, whichever is more efficient in each case.

(c) Initial decisions. The Council shall determine whether to comply with a FOIA request within 20 working days after our receipt of the request, unless the time frame for response is extended due to unusual circumstances as further described in paragraph (f) of this section. A request is received by the Council, for purposes of commencing the 20-day timeframe for its response, on the day it is properly received by the FOIA Officer. The request must meet all requirements described by these regulations and the FOIA before the 20-day timeframe commences.

(d) Administrative appeals. The Executive Director shall determine whether to affirm or overturn a decision subject to administrative appeal within 20 working days after receipt of the appeal, unless the time frame for response is extended in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section.

(e) Tolling timelines. We may toll the 20-day timeframe set forth in paragraph (c) or (d) of this section:

(1) One time to await information that we reasonably requested from you, as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(A)(iii)(I);

(2) As necessary to clarify with you any fee-related issue.

(3) If we toll the time frame for response under paragraphs (e)(1) or (2) of this section, the tolling period ends upon our receipt of your response.

(f) Unusual circumstances. In the event of unusual circumstances, we may extend the time frame for response provided in paragraph (c) or (d) of this section by providing you with written notice of the unusual circumstances and the date on which a determination is expected to be made. Where the extension is for more than ten working days, we will provide you with an opportunity either to modify your request so that it may be processed within the statutorily-prescribed time limits or to arrange an alternative time period for processing your request or modified request.

(g) Aggregating requests. When we reasonably believe that multiple requests submitted by a requester, or by a group of requesters acting in concert, involving clearly related matters, can be viewed as a single request that involves unusual circumstances, we may aggregate the requests for the purposes of fees and processing activities.

(h) Expedited processing. You may request that the Council expedite processing of your FOIA request. To receive expedited processing, you must demonstrate a compelling need for such processing.

(1) For requests for expedited processing, a “compelling need” involves:

(i) Circumstances in which the lack of expedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual; or

(ii) A request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, with a time urgency to inform the public of actual or alleged federal government activity.

(2) Your request for expedited processing must be in writing and may be made at the time of the initial FOIA request or at any later time.

(3) Your request for expedited processing must include a statement, certified to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief, explaining in detail the basis for requesting expedited processing. If you are a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, you must establish a particular urgency to inform the public about the federal government activity involved in the request.

(4) The FOIA Officer will decide whether to grant or deny your request for expedited processing and notify the requester within ten calendar days of receipt. You will be notified in writing of the determination. Appeals of adverse decisions regarding expedited processing shall be processed expeditiously.

§ 10000.9 Business information.

(a) Designation of confidential business information. In the event a FOIA request is made for confidential business information previously submitted to the Government by a commercial entity or on behalf of it (hereinafter “submitter”), the regulations in this section apply. When submitting confidential business information, you must use a good-faith effort to designate, by use of appropriate markings, at the time of submission or at a reasonable time thereafter, any portions of your submission that you consider to be exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 4, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). Your designation will expire ten years after the date of submission unless you request, and provide justification for, a longer designation period.

(b) Notice to submitters. (1) Whenever you designate confidential business information as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, or the Council has reason to believe that your submission may contain confidential business information, we will provide you with prompt written notice of a FOIA request that seeks your business information. The notice shall:

(i) Give you an opportunity to object to disclosure of your information, in whole or in part;

(ii) Describe the business information requested or include copies of the requested records or record portions containing the information; and

(iii) Inform you of the time frame in which you must respond to the notice.

(2) In cases involving a voluminous number of submitters, notice may be made by posting or publishing the notice in a place or manner reasonably likely to accomplish it.

(c) Opportunity to object to disclosure. The Council shall allow you a reasonable time to respond to the notice described in paragraph (b) of this section. If you object to the disclosure of your information, in whole or in part, you must provide us with a detailed written statement of your objection. The statement must specify all grounds for withholding any portion of the information under any FOIA exemption and, when relying on FOIA Exemption 4, it must explain why the information is a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential. If you fail to respond within the time frame specified in the notice, the Council will conclude that you have no objection to disclosure of your information. The Council will only consider information that we receive within the time frame specified in the notice.

(d) Notice of intent to disclose. The Council will consider your objection and specific grounds for non-disclosure in deciding whether to disclose business information. Whenever the Council decides to disclose business information over your objection, we will provide you with written notice that includes:

(1) A statement of the reasons why each of your bases for withholding were not sustained;

(2) A description of the business information to be disclosed; and

(3) A specified disclosure date, which shall be a reasonable time after the notice.

(e) Exceptions to the notice requirement. The notice requirements of paragraphs (c) and

(d) of this section shall not apply if:

(1) The Council determines that the information is exempt under the FOIA;

(2) The information lawfully has been published or has been officially made available to the public;

(3) Disclosure of the information is required by statute (other than the FOIA) or by a regulation issued in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12600;

(4) The designation made by the submitter under paragraph (a) of this section appears obviously frivolous, except that, in such a case, the Council shall, within a reasonable time prior to the date the disclosure will be made, give the submitter written notice of the final decision to disclose the information.

(f) Requester notification. The Council shall notify a requester whenever it provides the submitter with notice and an opportunity to object to disclosure; whenever it notifies the submitter of its intent to disclose the requested information; and whenever a submitter files a lawsuit to prevent the disclosure of the information.

§ 10000.10 Fees.

(a) We will charge fees that recoup the full allowable direct costs we incur in processing your FOIA request. Fees may be charged for search, review or duplication. We will use the most efficient and least costly methods to comply with your request.

(b) With regard to manual searches for records, we will charge the salary rate(s) (calculated as the basic rate of pay plus 16 percent of that basic rate to cover benefits) of the employee(s) performing the search.

(c) In calculating charges for computer searches for records, we will charge at the actual direct cost of providing the service, including the cost of operating the central processing unit directly attributable to searching for records potentially responsive to your FOIA request and the portion of the salary of the operators/programmers performing the search.

(d) Review fees shall be charged for requesters who make commercial use requests. Review fees shall be assessed only for the initial review—that is the review undertaken the first time we analyze the applicability of a specific exemption to a particular record or portion of a record. Records or portions of records withheld in full under an exemption that is subsequently determined not to apply may be reviewed again to determine the applicability of other exemptions not previously considered. We may assess the costs for such subsequent review. Review fees are charged at the same rates as those charged for a search.

(e) Notice of anticipated fees in excess of $25.00:

(1) When the Council determines or estimates that the fees to be assessed in accordance with this section will exceed $25.00, the Council shall notify the requester of the actual or estimated amount of the fees, including a breakdown of the fees for search, review or duplication, unless the requester has indicated a willingness to pay fees as high as those anticipated. If only a portion of the fee can be estimated readily, the Council shall advise the requester accordingly. If the requester is a noncommercial use requester, the notice shall specify that the requester is entitled to the statutory entitlements of 100 pages of duplication or equivalent at no charge. For example, 100 pages burned to a single CD would be considered equivalent to 100 pages of duplication. And, if the requester is charged search fees, two hours of search time at no charge, and shall advise the requester whether those entitlements have been provided.

(2) In cases in which a requester has been notified that the actual or estimated fees are in excess of $25.00, the request shall not be considered received and further work will not be completed until the requester commits in writing to pay the actual or estimated total fee, or designates some amount of fees the requester is willing to pay, or in the case of a noncommercial use requester who has not yet been provided with the requester's statutory entitlements, designates that the requester seeks only that which can be provided by the statutory entitlements. The requester must provide the commitment or designation in writing, and must, when applicable, designate an exact dollar amount the requester is willing to pay. The Council is not required to accept payments in installments.

(3) If the requester has indicated a willingness to pay some designated amount of fees, but the Council estimates that the total fee will exceed that amount, the Council shall toll the processing of the request when it notifies the requester of the estimated fees in excess of the amount the requester has indicated a willingness to pay. The Council shall inquire whether the requester wishes to revise the amount of fees the requester is willing to pay or modify the request. Once the requester responds, the time to respond will resume from where it was at the date of the notification.

(4) The Council shall make available its FOIA Public Liaison or other FOIA professional to assist any requester in reformulating a request to meet the requester's needs at a lower cost.

(f) We will charge you the full costs of providing you with the following services:

(1) Certifying that records are true copies; or

(2) Sending records by special methods such as express or certified mail.

(g) We may assess interest charges on an unpaid bill starting on the 31st calendar day following the day on which the billing was sent. Interest shall be at the rate prescribed in 31 U.S.C. 3717 and will accrue from the date of the billing.

(h) We will not charge a search fee for requests by educational institutions, non-commercial scientific institutions, or representatives of the news media. A search fee will be charged for a commercial use requests.

(i) Except for a commercial use request, we will not charge you for the first 100 pages of duplication and the first two hours of search.

(j) If the Council fails to comply with the time limits in which to respond to a request, and if no unusual or exceptional circumstances, as those terms are defined by the FOIA, apply to the processing of the request, it may not charge search fees, or, in the instances of requests from requesters requests by educational institutions (unless the records are sought for a commercial use), noncommercial scientific institutions, or representatives of the news media, may not charge duplication fees.

(k) After processing, actual fees must be equal to or exceed $25, for the Council to require payment of fees.

(l) You may not file multiple requests, each seeking portions of a document or documents, solely for the purpose of avoiding payment of fees. When the Council reasonably believes that a requester, or a group of requesters acting in concert, has submitted requests that constitute a single request involving clearly related matters, we may aggregate those requests and charge accordingly.

(m) We may not require you to make payment before we begin work to satisfy the request or to continue work on a request, unless:

(1) We estimate or determine that the allowable charges that you may be required to pay are likely to exceed $250; or

(2) You have previously failed to pay a fee charged within 30 days of the date of billing.

(n) Upon written request, we may waive or reduce fees that are otherwise chargeable under this part. If you request a waiver or reduction in fees, you must demonstrate that a waiver or reduction in fees is in the public interest because disclosure of the requested records is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in your commercial interest.

(1) In deciding whether disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of operations or activities of the government, the Council shall consider all four of the following factors:

(i) The subject of the request must concern identifiable operations or activities of the Federal Government, with a connection that is direct and clear, not remote or attenuated.

(ii) Disclosure of the requested records must be meaningfully informative about government operations or activities in order to be “likely to contribute” to an increased public understanding of those operations or activities. The disclosure of information that already is in the public domain, in either the same or a substantially identical form, would not contribute to such understanding where nothing new would be added to the public's understanding.

(iii) The disclosure must contribute to the understanding of a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester. A requester's expertise in the subject area as well as the requester's ability and intention to effectively convey information to the public shall be considered. It shall be presumed that a representative of the news media will satisfy this consideration.

(iv) The public's understanding of the subject in question must be enhanced by the disclosure to a significant extent. However, components shall not make value judgments about whether the information at issue is “important” enough to be made public.

(2) To determine whether disclosure of the requested information is primarily in the commercial interest of the requester, the Council shall consider the following factors:

(i) The Council shall identify any commercial interest of the requester, as defined in § 10000.2, that would be furthered by the requested disclosure. Requesters shall be given an opportunity to provide explanatory information regarding this consideration.

(ii) A waiver or reduction of fees is justified where the public interest is greater than any identified commercial interest in disclosure. The Council ordinarily shall presume that where a news media requester has satisfied the public interest standard, the public interest will be the interest primarily served by disclosure to that requester. Disclosure to data brokers or others who merely compile and market government information for direct economic return shall not be presumed to primarily serve the public interest.

(3) Where only some of the records to be released satisfy the requirements for a waiver of fees, a waiver shall be granted for those records.

(4) Requests for a waiver or reduction of fees should be made when the request is first submitted to the component and should address the criteria referenced above. A requester may submit a fee waiver request at a later time so long as the underlying record request is pending or on administrative appeal. When a requester who has committed to pay fees subsequently asks for a waiver of those fees and that waiver is denied, the requester shall be required to pay any costs incurred up to the date the fee waiver request was received.

PART 10001—IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 Sec. 10001.1 Purpose and scope. 10001.2 Definitions. 10001.3 Privacy Act requests. 10001.4 Responses to Privacy Act requests. 10001.5 Administrative appeals. 10001.6 Fees. 10001.7 Penalties. Authority:

5 U.S.C. 552a.

§ 10001.1 Purpose and scope.

The regulations in this part implement the provisions of the Privacy Act.

§ 10001.2 Definitions.

The following terms used in this part are defined in the Privacy Act: Individual, maintain, record, routine use, statistical record, system of records. The following definitions also apply in this part:

Chairperson means the Chairperson of the Council, as appointed by the President, or any person to whom the Council has delegated authority for the matter concerned.

Council means the National Council on Disability, established by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 780 et seq.), as amended, and amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (Pub. L. 113-128) in 2014.

General Counsel means the Council's principal legal advisor, or his or her designee.

Privacy Act means the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended.

Privacy Act Officer means the person designated by the Council to be responsible for the day-to-day administration of the Privacy Act, currently delegated to the Council's Management Analyst.

§ 10001.3 Privacy Act requests.

(a) Requests to determine if you are the subject of a record. You may request that the Council inform you if we maintain a system of records that contains records about you. Your request must follow the procedures described in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Requests for access. You may request access to a Council record about you in writing or by appearing in person. You should direct your request to the Privacy Act Officer. Written requests may be sent to: Privacy Act Officer, National Council on Disability, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004. Your request should include the following information:

(1) Your name, address, and telephone number;

(2) The system(s) of records in which the requested information is contained; and

(3) At your option, authorization for copying expenses.

(4) Written requests. In addition to the information described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, written requests must include a statement affirming your identity, signed by you and witnessed by two persons (including witnesses' addresses) or notarized.

(i) Witnessed. If your statement is witnessed, it must include a sentence above the witnesses' signatures attesting that they personally know you or that you have provided satisfactory proof of your identity.

(ii) Notarized. If your statement is notarized, you must provide the notary with adequate proof of your identity in the form of a drivers' license, passport, or other identification acceptable to the notary.

(iii) The Council, in its discretion, may require additional proof of identification depending on the nature and sensitivity of the records in the system of records(iv) For the quickest possible handling, your letter and envelope should be marked “Privacy Act Request.”

(5) In person requests. In addition to the information described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, if you make your request in person, you must provide adequate proof of identification at the time of your request. Adequate proof of identification includes a valid drivers' license, valid passport, or other current identification that includes your address and photograph.

(c) Requests for amendment or correction of records. You may request an amendment to or correction of a record about you in person or by writing to the Privacy Act Officer following the procedures described in paragraph (b) of this section. Your request for amendment or correction should identify each particular record at issue, state the amendment or correction sought, and describe why the record is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete.

(d) Requests for an accounting of disclosures. Except for those disclosures for which the Privacy Act does not require an accounting, you may request an accounting of any disclosure by the Council of a record about you. Your request for an accounting of disclosures must be made in writing following the procedures described in paragraph (b) of this section.

(e) Requests for access on behalf of someone else. (1) If you are making a request on behalf of someone else, your request must include a statement from that individual verifying his or her identity, as provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. Your request also must include a statement certifying that individual's agreement that records about him or her may be released to you.

(2) If you are the parent or guardian of the individual to whom the requested record pertains, or the individual to whom the record pertains has been deemed incompetent by a court, your request for access to records about that individual must include:

(i) The identity of the individual who is the subject of the record, including his or her name, current address, and date and place of birth;

(ii) Verification of your identity in accordance with paragraph (b)(4) of this section;

(iii) Verification that you are the subject's parent or guardian, which may be established by a copy of the subject's birth certificate identifying you as his or her parent, or a court order establishing you as guardian; and

(iv) A statement certifying that you are making the request on the subject's behalf.

§ 10001.4 Responses to Privacy Act requests.

(a) Acknowledgement. The Privacy Act Officer shall provide you with a written acknowledgment of your written request under section 3 within ten business days of our receipt of your request.

(b) Grants of requests. If you make your request in person, the Privacy Act Officer shall respond to your request directly, either by granting you access to the requested records, upon payment of any applicable fee and with a written record of the grant of your request and receipt of the records, or by informing you when a response may be expected. If you are accompanied by another person, you must authorize in writing any discussion of the records in the presence of the third person. If your request is in writing, the Privacy Act Officer shall provide you with written notice of the Council's decision to grant your request and the amount of any applicable fee. The Privacy Act Officer shall disclose the records to you promptly, upon payment of any applicable fee.

(c) Denials of requests in whole or in part. The Privacy Act Officer shall notify you in writing of his or her determination to deny, in whole or in part, your request. This writing shall include the following information:

(1) The name and title or position of the person responsible for the denial;

(2) A brief statement of the reason for the denial(s), including any applicable Privacy Act exemption;

(3) A statement that you may appeal the denial and a brief description of the requirements for appeal under § 10001.5.

(d) Request for records not covered by the Privacy Act or subject to Privacy Act exemption. If the Privacy Act Officer determines that a requested record is not subject to the Privacy Act or the records are subject to Privacy Act exemption, your request will be processed in accordance with the Council's Freedom of Information Act procedures at 5 CFR part 10000.

§ 10001.5 Administrative appeals.

(a) Appeal procedures. (1) You may appeal any decision by the Council to deny, in whole or in part, your request under § 10001.3 no later than 60 days after the decision is rendered.

(2) Your appeal must be in writing, sent to the General Counsel at the address specified in § 10001.3(b) and contain the following information:

(i) Your name;

(ii) Description of the record(s) at issue;

(iii) The system of records in which the record(s) is contained;

(iv) A statement of why your request should be granted.

(3) The General Counsel shall determine whether to uphold or reverse the initial determination within 30 working days of our receipt of your appeal. The General Counsel shall notify you of his or her decision, including a brief statement of the reasons for the decision, in writing. The General Counsel's decision will be the final action of the Council.

(b) Statement of disagreement. If your appeal of our determination related to your request for amendment or correction is denied in whole or in part, you may file a Statement of Disagreement that states the basis for your disagreement with the denial. Statements of Disagreement must be concise and must clearly identify each part of any record that is disputed. The Privacy Act Officer will place your Statement of Disagreement in the system of records in which the disputed record is maintained and shall mark the disputed record to indicate that a Statement of Disagreement has been filed and where it may be found.

(c) Notification of amendment, correction, or disagreement. Within 30 working days of the amendment or correction of a record, the Privacy Act Officer shall notify all persons, organizations, or agencies to which the Council previously disclosed the record, if an accounting of that disclosure was made, that the record has been corrected or amended. If you filed a Statement of Disagreement, the Privacy Act Officer shall append a copy of it to the disputed record whenever it is disclosed and also may append a concise statement of its reason(s) for denying the request to amend or correct the record.

§ 10001.6 Fees.

We will not charge a fee for search or review of records requested under this part, or for the correction of records. If you request copies of records, we may charge a fee of $.10 per page.

§ 10001.7 Penalties.

Any person who makes a false statement in connection with any request for a record or an amendment or correction thereto under this part is subject to the penalties prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 494 and 495 and 5 U.S.C. 552a(i)(3).

PART 10002—IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE ACT Sec. 10002.1 Purpose and scope. 10002.2 Definitions. 10002.3 Open meetings. 10002.4 Procedures for public announcement of meetings. 10002.5 Grounds on which meetings may be closed or information withheld. 10002.6 Procedures for closing meetings or withholding information, and requests by affected persons to close a meeting. 10002.7 Changes following public announcement. 10002.8 Transcripts, recordings, or minutes of closed meetings. 10002.9 Public availability and retention of transcripts, recordings, and minutes, and applicable fees. Authority:

5 U.S.C. 552b.

§ 10002.1 Purpose and scope.

(a) The regulations in this part implement the provisions of the Sunshine Act.

(b) Requests for all records other than those described in § 10002.9, shall be governed by the Council's Freedom of Information Act procedures at 5 CFR part 10001.

§ 10002.2 Definitions.

The following definitions apply in this part:

Chairperson means the Chairperson of the Council, as appointed by the President, or any person to whom the Council has delegated authority for the matter concerned.

Council means the National Council on Disability, established by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 780 et seq.), as amended, and amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (Pub. L. 113-128) in 2014.

General Counsel means the Council's principal legal advisor, or his or her designee.

Meeting means the deliberations of five or more Council members that determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of official Council business. A meeting does not include:

(1) Notational voting or similar consideration of business for the purpose of recording votes, whether by circulation of material to members' individually in writing or by a polling of the members individually by phone or email.

(2) Action by five or more members to:

(i) Open or close a meeting or to release or withhold information pursuant to § 10002.6;

(ii) Set an agenda for a proposed meeting;

(iii) Call a meeting on less than seven days' notice, as permitted by § 10002.4; or

(iv) Change the subject matter or the determination to open or to close a publicly announced meeting under § 10002.7.

(3) A session attended by five or more members for the purpose of having the Council's staff or expert consultants, another federal agency, or other persons or organizations brief or otherwise provide information to the Council concerning any matters within the purview of the Council, provided that the members do not engage in deliberations that determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of official business on such matters.

(4) A gathering of members for the purpose of holding informal, preliminary discussions or exchanges of views which do not effectively predetermine official action.

Member means an individual duly appointed and confirmed to the Council.

Public observation means attendance by the public at a meeting of the Council, but does not include public participation.

Public participation means the presentation or discussion of information, raising of questions, or other manner of involvement in a meeting of the Council by the public in a manner that contributes to the disposition of official Council business.

Sunshine Act means the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.

§ 10002.3 Open meetings.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this part, every portion of a Council meeting shall be open to public observation.

(b) Council meetings, or portions thereof, shall be open to public participation when an announcement to that effect is published under § 10002.4. Public participation shall be conducted in an orderly, non-disruptive manner and in accordance with any procedures the Chairperson may establish. Public participation may be terminated for good cause as determined by the Council upon the advice of the General Counsel based on unanticipated developments.

§ 10002.4 Procedures for public announcement of meetings.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Council shall make a public announcement at least seven days prior to a meeting. The public announcement shall include:

(1) The time and place of the meeting;

(2) The subject matter of the meeting;

(3) Whether the meeting is to be open, closed, or portions of a meeting will be closed;

(4) Whether public participation will be allowed;

(5) The name and telephone number of the person who will respond to requests for information about the meeting;

(b) The seven-day prior notice required by paragraph (a) of this section may be reduced only if:

(1) A majority of all members determine by recorded vote that Council business requires that such meeting be scheduled in less than seven days; and

(2) The public announcement required by this section is made at the earliest practicable time.

(c) If public notice is provided by means other than publication in the Federal Register, notice will be promptly submitted to the Federal Register for publication.

§ 10002.5 Grounds on which meetings may be closed or information withheld.

A meeting, or portion thereof, may be closed and information pertinent to such meeting withheld if the Council determines that the meeting or release of information is likely to disclose matters that are:

(a) Specifically authorized under criteria established by an executive order to be kept secret in the interests of national defense or foreign policy; and, in fact, are properly classified pursuant to such executive order. In making the determination that this exemption applies, the Council shall rely on the classification assigned to the document or assigned to the information from the federal agency from which the document was received.

(b) Related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the Council;

(c) Specifically exempt from disclosure by statute (other than 5 U.S.C. 552), provided that such statute:

(1) Requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; or

(2) Establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;

(d) Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

(e) Involved with accusing any person of a crime or formally censuring any person;

(f) Of a personal nature, if disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(g) Either investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes or information which, if written, would be contained in such records, but only to the extent that the production of records or information would:

(1) Interfere with enforcement proceedings;

(2) Deprive a person of a right to either a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;

(3) Constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(4) Disclose the identity of a confidential source or sources and, in the case of a record compiled either by a criminal law enforcement authority or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source(s);

(5) Disclose investigative techniques and procedures; or

(6) Endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel;

(h) Contained in or relating to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions;

(i) If prematurely disclosed, likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed action of the Council, except that this subsection shall not apply in any instance where the Council has already disclosed to the public the content or nature of its proposed action or is required by law to make such disclosure on its own initiative prior to taking final action on such proposal; and

(j) Specifically concerned with the Council's issuance of a subpoena, or its participation in a civil action or proceeding, an action in a foreign court or international tribunal, or an arbitration, or the initiation, conduct, or disposition by the Council of a particular case or formal agency adjudication pursuant to the procedures in 5 U.S.C. 554 or otherwise involving a determination on the record after opportunity for a hearing.

§ 10002.6 Procedures for closing meetings or withholding information, and requests by affected persons to close a meeting.

(a) A meeting or portion of a meeting may be closed and information pertaining to a meeting withheld under § 10002.5 only by vote of a majority of members.

(b) A separate vote of the members shall be taken with respect to each meeting or portion of a meeting proposed to be closed and with respect to information which is proposed to be withheld. A single vote may be taken with respect to a series of meetings or portions of a meeting that are proposed to be closed, so long as each meeting or portion thereof in the series involves the same particular matter and is scheduled to be held no more than 30 days after the initial meeting in the series. The vote of each member shall be recorded and no proxies shall be allowed.

(c) A person whose interests may be directly affected by a portion of a meeting may request in writing that the Council close that portion for any of the reasons referred to in § 10002.5(e) through (g). Upon the request of a member, a recorded vote shall be taken whether to close such meeting or portion thereof.

(d) For every meeting closed, the General Counsel shall publicly certify that, in his or her opinion, the meeting may be closed to the public and shall state each relevant basis for closing the meeting. If the General Counsel invokes the bases set forth in § 10002.5(a) or (c), he or she shall rely upon the classification or designation assigned to the information by the originating agency. A copy of such certification, together with a statement by the presiding officer setting forth the time and place of the meeting and the persons present, shall be retained by the Council as part of the transcript, recording, or minutes required by § 10002.8.

§ 10002.7 Changes following public announcement.

(a) The time or place of a meeting may be changed following the public announcement described in § 10002.4. The Council must publicly announce such change at the earliest practicable time.

(b) The subject matter of a meeting or the determination of the Council to open or close a meeting, or a portion thereof, to the public may be changed following public announcement only if:

(1) A majority of all members determine by recorded vote that Council business so requires and that no earlier announcement of the change was possible; and

(2) The Council publicly announces such change and the vote of each member thereon at the earliest practicable time.

§ 10002.8 Transcripts, recordings, or minutes of closed meetings.

Along with the General Counsel's certification and presiding officer's statement referred to in § 10002.6(d), the Council shall maintain a complete transcript or electronic recording adequate to record fully the proceedings of each meeting, or a portion thereof, closed to the public. Alternatively, for any meeting closed pursuant to § 10002.5(h) or (j), the Council may maintain a set of minutes adequate to record fully the proceedings, including a description of each of the views expressed on any item and the record of any roll call vote.

§ 10002.9 Public availability and retention of transcripts, recordings, and minutes, and applicable fees.

(a) The Council shall make available, in a place easily accessible, such as www.ncd.gov, to the public the transcript, electronic recording, or minutes of a meeting, except for items of discussion or testimony related to matters the Council determines may be withheld under § 10002.6.

(b) Copies of the nonexempt portions of the transcripts or minutes shall be provided upon receipt of the actual costs of the transcription or duplication.

(c) The Council shall maintain meeting transcripts, recordings, or minutes of each meeting closed to the public for a period ending at the later of two years following the date of the meeting, or one year after the conclusion of any Council proceeding with respect to the closed meeting.

PARTS 10003-10049—[RESERVED]
Dated: August 11, 2015. Rebecca Cokley, Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2015-20140 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8421-03-P
BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 12 CFR Part 1010 Compliance Bulletin—Amendment to the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act AGENCY:

Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

ACTION:

Compliance bulletin.

SUMMARY:

The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection is issuing a compliance bulletin titled “Amendment to the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act” to provide information to developers and other interested parties relating to a recent Congressional amendment to the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act.

DATES:

This bulletin is applicable August 17, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amanda Quester, Senior Counsel, Office of Regulations, at (202) 435-7700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Compliance Bulletin

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) issues this compliance bulletin to provide information to developers and other interested parties relating to Public Law 113-167, 128 Stat. 1882 (2014), which amended the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA). This ILSA amendment was signed by the President on September 26, 2014. It became effective on March 25, 2015, and is codified primarily at 15 U.S.C. 1702(b)(9) and (d).

The amendment exempts from ILSA's registration and disclosure requirements the sale or lease of a condominium unit that is not exempt under 15 U.S.C. 1702(a). Under 15 U.S.C. 1702(d), a “condominium unit” is defined for purposes of this new exemption as a unit of residential or commercial property to be designated for separate ownership pursuant to a condominium plan or declaration provided that upon conveyance: (1) The owner of such unit will have sole ownership of the unit and an undivided interest in the common elements appurtenant to the unit; and (2) the unit will be an improved lot.

Pursuant to § 1010.4(d) of the Bureau's ILSA regulations, eligibility for an exemption under 15 U.S.C. 1702, including the exemption of section 1702(b)(9), is self-determining, and a developer is not required to file notice with or obtain the approval of the Bureau in order to take advantage of an exemption. Section 1010.4(d) also provides that a developer is responsible for maintaining records to demonstrate that the requirements of an exemption have been met if a developer elects to take advantage of an exemption. The Bureau will continue to process filings made by developers seeking to fulfill their obligations under ILSA and its implementing regulations.

If you have questions about ILSA program operations, you may contact ILSA program staff via email to [email protected] or at the address below: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Interstate Land Sales Program, 1700 G St. NW., Attn: 1625 Eye St., Room 3093, Washington, DC 20552.

If you have a question regarding the interpretation of ILSA or the Bureau's implementing regulations, please email [email protected] with your specific question, including reference to the applicable regulation section(s).

Bureau staff responding to queries cannot provide legal advice and are not authorized to provide official interpretations of ILSA or of the Bureau's implementing regulations.

II. Regulatory Requirements

This Compliance Bulletin summarizes existing requirements under the law, and does not itself establish any binding obligations. It is therefore exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a). The Bureau has determined that this Compliance Bulletin does not impose any new or revise any existing recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Dated: August 10, 2015. Richard Cordray, Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
[FR Doc. 2015-19998 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3398; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-031-AD; Amendment 39-18232; AD 2015-16-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; REIMS AVIATION S.A. Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for REIMS AVIATION S.A. Model F406 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as detachment of the pilot's rudder control pedal in flight. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective August 18, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of August 18, 2015.

We must receive comments on this AD by October 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

Fax: (202) 493-2251.

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

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

For service information identified in this AD, contact ASI Aviation, Aérodrome de Reims Prunay, 51360 Prunay, FRANCE; phone: +33 3 26 48 46 65; fax: +33 3 26 49 18 57; email: none; Internet: http://asi-aviation.fr/asi-aviation-support/1.html (requires user name and password). You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3398.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3398; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Albert J. Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4119; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.: 2015-0159-E, dated July 31, 2015 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

An occurrence was reported where one pilot rudder control pedal of an F 406 aeroplane detached in flight. No change in aeroplane attitude occurred. The rudder was controlled using the co-pilot rudder pedals, and the flight continued uneventfully until a safe landing was performed.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in loss of directional control of the aeroplane.

To address this unsafe condition, ASI Aviation issued Service Bulletin (SB) F406-104 to provide inspection instructions.

For the reason described above, this AD requires inspection of the rudder control pedal torque tubes, both left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH), and, depending on findings, replacement with a serviceable part.

This AD also requires inspection before new installation of rudder control pedal torque tubes.

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3398.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

ASI AVIATION has issued Service Bulletin No.: F406-104, dated July 28, 2015. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. The service information describes procedures for inspection of the left-hand and right-hand rudder control pedal torque tubes, and, depending on findings, replacement with a serviceable part. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the AD

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

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because detachment of the pilot rudder control pedal in flight could result in loss of airplane directional control. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-3398; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-031-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD will affect 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $2,975, or $425 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 20 work-hours and require parts costing $10,000, for a cost of $11,700 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: 2015-16-07 REIMS AVIATION S.A.: Amendment 39-18232; Docket No. FAA-2015-3398; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-031-AD. (a) Effective Date

This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective August 18, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Reims Aviation S.A. Model F406 airplanes, serial numbers 0001 through 0098, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as detachment of the pilot's rudder control pedal in flight. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the pilot rudder control pedal which, if not corrected, could result in detachment of the pedal with possible loss of airplane directional control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4) of this AD.

(1) Before further flight after August 18, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), do a visual inspection and a dye or fluorescent penetrant inspection of the rudder control pedal torque tubes, LH (Part Number (P/N) 5115260-1) and RH (P/N 5115260-2), following the instructions of PART A of ASI AVIATION Service Bulletin No.: F406-104, dated July 28, 2015.

(2) If no crack is detected during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after August 18, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), do a magnetic particle inspection of the rudder control pedal torque tubes, LH (P/N 5115260-1) and RH (P/N 5115260-2), following the instructions of PART B of ASI AVIATION Service Bulletin No.: F406-104, dated July 28, 2015.

(3) If any crack is detected on a rudder control pedal torque tube during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, before further flight, replace the affected part with a serviceable part following the instructions of ASI AVIATION Service Bulletin No.: F406-104, dated July 28, 2015.

(4) For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable part is a rudder control pedal torque tube that has had a magnetic particle inspection following the instructions of PART B of ASI AVIATION Service Bulletin No.: F406-104, dated July 28, 2015, and no cracks were found.

(5) You may install a rudder control pedal torque tube P/N 5115260-1 (LH) or P/N 5115260-2 (RH) on an airplane, provided it is a serviceable part.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Albert J. Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4119; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(h) Related Information

Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2015-0159-E, dated July 31, 2015, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3398.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) ASI AVIATION Service Bulletin No.: F406-104, dated July 28, 2015.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact ASI Aviation, Aérodrome de Reims Prunay, 51360 Prunay, FRANCE; phone: +33 3 26 48 46 65; fax: +33 3 26 49 18 57; email: none; Internet: http://asi-aviation.fr/asi-aviation-support/1.html (requires user name and password).

(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3398.

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

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on August 6, 2015. Earl Lawrence, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-19901 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1744; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-016-AD; Amendment 39-18231; AD 2015-16-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Model Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the in-service special detailed inspection technique required for the Jetstream 3200's life extension program was delayed; consequently, the in-service special detailed inspection technique is not formally part of the life extension program and may therefore not be accomplished as intended. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective September 21, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of September 21, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1744; or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone: +44 1292 675207; fax: +44 1292 675704; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2015-1744.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to adding an AD that would apply to British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Model Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 26, 2015 (80 FR 29988). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

The Jetstream 3200 Life Extension Programme (LEP) permits the airframe life limit to be extended from 45 000 flight cycles (FC) to 67 000 FC. Entry into the LEP requires operators to accomplish inspections specified in the Jetstream 3200 Supplemental Structural Inspections Document (SSID). SSID task 57-10-227 is the inspection requirement for the wing main spar at Rib 36. The threshold for task 57-10-227 is 48 000 FC, with a repeat interval of 16 800 FC, using a Special Detailed Inspection (SDI). Development of the in-service SDI technique required for SSID task 57-10-227 was delayed by BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd, as a result of which it is not formally part of the LEP and may therefore not be accomplished as intended.

This condition, if not corrected, could lead to cracks in the wing main spar remaining undetected, possibly resulting in failure of the wing and loss of the aeroplane.

To address this potential unsafe condition, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd issued SB 57-JA140140 to provide SDI instructions for the wing main spar at Rib 36, which includes a reduced repeat inspection interval.

For the reasons described above, this AD requires repetitive inspections of the wing main spar around Rib 36 to detect cracks and, depending on findings, accomplishment of the applicable corrective action(s).

The SSID will be revised in due course to include the SDI. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-1744-0002.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 29988, May 26, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 29988, May 26, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 29988, May 26, 2015).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed British Aerospace Regional Aircraft British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 57-JA140140, Original Issue, dated: June 26, 2014. The service information describes procedures for inspections of the wing main spar around Rib 36 to detect cracks and, depending on findings, accomplishment of the applicable corrective action(s). This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD will affect 22 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 96 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $179,520, or $8,160 per product.

We have no way of determining any necessary follow-on actions, costs, or the number of products that may need these actions.

Paperwork Reduction Act

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1744; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: 2015-16-06  British Aerospace Regional Aircraft: Amendment 39-18231; Docket No. FAA-2015-1744; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-016-AD. (a) Effective Date

This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective September 21, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes, all serial numbers, that are:

(1) Certificated in any category; and

(2) Modified in service following BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd Service Bulletin (SB) 05- JM8229.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 57: Wings.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the in-service special detailed inspection technique required for the Jetstream 3200's life extension program was delayed; consequently, the in-service special detailed inspection (SDI) technique is not formally part of the life extension program and may therefore not be accomplished as intended. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the wing main spar, which could result in structural failure of the wing with consequent loss of control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

Unless already done, do the following actions as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this AD:

(1) Before accumulating a total of 53,950 flight cycles (FC) on the airplane or within the next 50 FC after September 21, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 14,300 FC, accomplish an eddy current (EC) and an x-ray inspection of the wing main spar around rib 36 following the instructions of British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 57-JA140140, Original Issue, dated June 26, 2014. For the purposes of this AD, owner/operators who do not track total FC must multiply the total number of airplane hours time-in-service (TIS) by 0.75 to calculate the cycles.

(2) If any crack or corrosion is found during any inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd for FAA-approved repair instructions approved specifically for this AD and accomplish those instructions. You can find contact information for BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Use the Operator Report Form and follow the instructions in British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 57-JA140140, Original Issue, dated: June 26, 2014.

(3) Repair of an airplane as required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD does not terminate the repetitive inspections required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD for that airplane, unless the approved repair instructions state otherwise.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: email: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(h) Related Information

Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2015-0063, dated April 22, 2015, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-1744-0002.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) British Aerospace Regional Aircraft British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 57-JA140140, Original Issue, dated: June 26, 2014.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For British Aerospace Regional Aircraft service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone: +44 1292 675207; fax: +44 1292 675704; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/.

(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1744.

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

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 6, 2015. Earl Lawrence, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-19778 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-2048; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-015-AD; Amendment 39-18230; AD 2015-16-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Jetstream Series 3101 and Jetsream Model 3201 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as missing countersunk washers under the head of the main landing gear trunnion cap tension bolts that could cause fatigue in the bolt shanks. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective September 21, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of September 21, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-2048; or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone: +44 1292 675207; fax: +44 1292 675704; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2015-2048.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to adding an AD that would apply to British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Model Jetstream Series 3101 and Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2015 (80 FR 32510). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country.

The MCAI states:

The review of the BAE production drawing for main landing gear (MLG) fitting installation identified a risk of omitting installation of a countersunk washer under the head of the MLG trunnion cap tension bolts, potentially causing fatigue in the bolt shank under the head of such tension bolt(s).

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the bolt(s), thereby compromising the structural integrity of the other MLG tension bolts holding the MLG in place, possibly resulting in collapse of the MLG on take-off or landing with consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.

Although so far, no in-service bolt head failures have been reported since entry in to service of the type design in 1986, to address this potential unsafe condition, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd issued Service Bulletin (SB) 57-JA120141 to provide inspection instructions.

For the reasons described above, this AD requires inspection and, depending on findings, replacement of the MLG trunnion cap tension bolts.

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-2048-0003.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 32510, June 9, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 32510, June 9, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 32510, June 9, 2015).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed British Aerospace Regional Aircraft British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 57-JA120141, REVISION 1, dated April 8, 2014. The service information describes procedures for inspection and replacement of main landing gear trunnion cap tension bolts. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD will affect 66 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $33,660, or $510 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $1,200, for a cost of $1,285 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-2048; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: 2015-16-05 British Aerospace Regional Aircraft: Amendment 39-18230; Docket No. FAA-2015-2048; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-015-AD. (a) Effective Date

This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective September 21, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Jetstream Series 3101 and Jetsream Model 3201 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing Gear.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as missing countersunk washers under the head of the main landing gear (MLG) trunnion cap tension bolts that could cause fatigue in the bolt shanks. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct missing countersunk washers, which could lead to failure of the bolt(s), thereby compromising the structural integrity of the other MLG tension bolts holding the MLG in place, possibly resulting in collapse of the MLG on take-off or landing with consequent damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.

(f) Actions and Compliance

Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, following the Accomplishment Instructions in British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 57-JA120141, REVISION 1, dated April 8, 2014:

(1) This AD allows credit for the actions required in paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4), including all subparagraphs, of this AD if done before September 21, 2015 (the effective date of this AD) following the Accomplishment Instructions of British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 57-JA120141, Original Issue, dated: July 31, 2012.

(2) For the purposes of this AD, owner/operators who do not track total flight cycles (FC) must multiply the total number of airplane hours time-in-service by 0.75 to calculate the FC.

(3) For Pre-Mod JM5218 airplanes: Within 250 FC after September 21, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), do a magnetic particle inspection (MPI) of each MLG trunnion cap tension bolt.

(i) If no crack is found during the MPI required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, either re-install the crack-free bolt(s) or install a replacement bolt(s) having the same part number (P/N) as the original bolt. Install a countersunk washer under the bolt(s) ensuring the washer P/N is applicable to the diameter bolt installed as specified in figure 1 of paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this AD.

Figure 1 of Paragraph (f)(3)(i)—Pre-Mod JM5218 Replacement Parts Bolt P/N Washer P/N MS21250H06040 PKS1000-6-2-S (washer). MS21250H07040 PKS1000-7-2-S (washer).

(ii) If a cracked bolt is found during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(3) of this AD, before further flight, replace each cracked bolt with a replacement bolt having the same P/N as the original bolt. Install a countersunk washer under the bolt ensuring the washer P/N is applicable to the diameter bolt installed as specified in figure 1 of paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this AD.

(4) For Post-Mod JM5218 airplanes: Within 250 FC after September 21, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), visually inspect each MLG trunnion cap tension bolt to determine which type of bolt is installed.

(i) If it is determined the installed bolts are P/N MS21134H07045 or P/N MS21134H07059 during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(4) of this AD, before further flight (except as specified in paragraph (f)(4)(i)(A) of this AD), replace each `old' bolt P/N with a `new' bolt P/N as specified in figure 2 of paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this AD and install a washer having P/N PKS1000-7-2-S under each bolt.

Figure 2 of Paragraph (f)(4)(i)—Post-Mod JM5218 Replacement Parts Bolt P/N `Old' Bolt P/N `New' MS21134H07045 MS21134H07046, or MS21250H07046. MS21134H07059 MS21134H07060, or MS21250H07060.

(A) If no `new' replacement bolt is available to comply with paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this AD, the `old' bolt may be reinstalled without a countersunk washer, provided that within 500 FC after reinstallation and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 FC, each affected bolt is inspected by MPI.

(B) Within 2,000 FC after reinstallation of a bolt as allowed by paragraph (f)(4)(i)(A) of this AD or before further flight if a crack was found during any MPI as required by paragraph (f)(4)(i)(A) of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the `old' bolt P/N with a `new' bolt P/N as specified in figure 2 of paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this AD and install a washer having P/N PKS1000-7-2-S under each bolt.

(ii) If it is determined the installed bolts are P/N MS21250H07046 or P/N MS21250H07060 and no countersunk washer is installed during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(4) of this AD, before further flight, do an MPI of each MLG trunnion cap tension bolt.

(A) If no crack is found during the MPI required by paragraph (f)(4)(ii) of this AD, before further flight, either re-install the crack-free bolts or install replacement bolts having a `new' bolt P/N as specified in figure 2 of paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this AD and install a countersunk washer P/N PKS1000-7-2-S under each bolt.

(B) If any crack is found during the MPI required by paragraph (f)(4)(ii) of this AD, before further flight, replace each cracked bolt with a serviceable one having a `new' bolt P/N as specified in figure 2 of paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this AD and install a countersunk washer P/N PKS1000-7-2-S under each bolt.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2015-0061, dated April 20, 2015; and British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 57-JA120141, Original Issue, dated: July 31, 2012, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-2048-0003.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 57-JA120141, REVISION 1, dated April 8, 2014.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For British Aerospace Regional Aircraft service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone: +44 1292 675207; fax: +44 1292 675704; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/.

(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-2048.

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

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 6, 2015. Earl Lawrence, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-19776 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0639; Airspace Docket No. 13-ASW-20] RIN 2120-AA66 Modification of Restricted Areas R-3804A, R-3804B, and R-3804C; Fort Polk, LA AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action expands the lateral boundary of restricted area R-3804B, Fort Polk, LA, and raises the restricted area ceiling to, but not including 10,000 feet mean sea level (MSL). The expanded restricted area airspace will contain new live fire ranges to support mission requirements of the U.S. Army in order to fully exploit the capabilities of modern weapons systems and complex training scenarios that replicate conditions encountered during military deployments today. This action also amends time of designation for R-3804A and R-3804B to better reflect when the restricted areas are in use by the U.S. Army and when the airspace is available to nonparticipants. Lastly, this action makes administrative editorial corrections to the R-3804A, R-3804B, and R-3804C legal descriptions.

DATES:

Effective date: 0901 UTC, October 15, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the restricted area airspace at Fort Polk, LA, to enhance aviation safety and accommodate essential U.S. Army training requirements.

History

On September 25, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (79 FR 57486) to expand the lateral boundary and raise the designated altitudes of restricted area R-3804B, amend the time of designation for R-3804A and R-3804B, and make using agency corrections to R-3804A, R-3804B, and R-3804C. The R-3804 restricted area complex amendments support the military training activities conducted at Fort Polk, LA.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. Fifteen comments were received with 14 of the commenters supporting the proposed action, and one commenter raising several concerns.

The commenter suggested the FAA offset a larger R-3804B by eliminating the R-3801A, R-3801B, and R-3801C restricted areas and/or the R-3803A and R-3803B restricted areas. The commenter offered that since the R-3801 complex and the Hackett and Jena Military Operations Areas (MOAs) all have the deactivated 917th Fighter Wing listed as the using agency, the FAA should consider them for deactivation. The R-3801 complex and associated MOAs mentioned by the commenter are used by U.S. Air Force B-52 aircraft operating from Barksdale Air Force Base (AFB), LA, for electronic combat training. The FAA has amended the legal descriptions of these Special Use Airspace (SUA) areas, effective April 30, 2015, to reflect the current using agency, the 307th Bomb Wing at Barksdale AFB, LA. The R-3803 complex noted by the commenter is used by U.S. Army units at Fort Polk for live fire training similar to that occurring in the R-3804 complex. The actual time the restricted area complexes are activated is roughly the same and consistent with the expected usage of the proposed R-3804B.

The commenter also stated that real-time deactivation of the restricted area complex during Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) periods of use is a disservice to civilian pilots who have flight planned to avoid the airspace. In the interest of maximizing navigable airspace availability to the flying public, the FAA considers real-time deactivation of SUA airspace, and making it available to non-participants, an efficient use of the National Airspace System. Under the FAA “joint use” concept, SUA is expected to be released to the controlling agency and become available for access by nonparticipating aircraft during periods when the airspace is not needed by the using agency for its designated purpose.

Lastly, the commenter questioned how much of the NOTAM activation period is actually going to be used by Fort Polk. The expected usage of R-3804B is approximately 2 weeks per month, continuously, during large unit training rotations. Modern weapons capabilities and tactics are optimized for around-the-clock employment, and training events to replicate combat scenarios can occur any time of the day or night. The R-3804 complex utilization reporting for 2013, the most recent year available, shows R-3804B to have been activated 5,412 hours out of a possible 8,760 hours. The FAA considers this utilization rate to be consistent with Fort Polk's planned use of the proposed R-3804B.

The amendments to R-3804A, R-3804B, and R-3804C are addressed below.

The Rule

This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 by expanding the lateral and vertical dimensions of restricted area R-3804B, Fort Polk, LA; changing the times of designation for R-3804A and R-3804B; and updating the using agency information for R-3804A, R-3804B, and R-3804C, and removing unnecessary verbiage from the designated altitudes and times of designation information for R-3804C.

The R-3804B boundary is expanded northward to match the northern boundary of R-3804A, as described in the NPRM, and the designated altitudes are raised from 3,000 feet MSL to, but not including, 10,000 feet MSL. This lateral and vertical expansion of R-3804B ensures containment of the hazardous artillery and mortar fires planned by the U.S. Army.

Additionally, the time of designation for R-3804A and R-3804B are changed from “Continuous” to “By NOTAM.” This amendment ensures the restricted areas are available to the U.S. Army when needed, continuously approximately two weeks each month, and provides a better indication to nonparticipants when the restricted areas are active and when they are available for use by the public.

Lastly, this action makes editorial updates to the using agency name for R-3804A, R-3804B, and R-3804C to incorporate the military service component of the using agency in the using agency name, removes the word “up” contained in the designated altitudes for R-3804C, and removes the words “As published” contained in the time of designation for R-3804C. These are purely administrative changes that do not affect the scheduling, use, or activities conducted within the restricted areas.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

Regarding expansion of the lateral boundary and raising the designated altitudes of restricted area R-3804B, in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, paragraphs 402 and 404d, the FAA has conducted an independent evaluation of the United States Army, Joint Readiness Training Center's Final Environmental Assessment for the Establishment of Additional Restricted Airspace Joint Readiness Training Center and Fort Polk, LA dated March 2013 (hereinafter “the FEA”). The FAA adopted the relevant portions of the FEA and prepared a Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision dated August 11, 2015. The FAA has determined that no significant impacts would occur as a result of the Federal action and therefore that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not warranted, and a Finding of No Significant Impact in accordance with 40 CFR part 1501.4(e) is appropriate.

Regarding amending the time of designation for R-3804A and R-3804B, the FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 311c. This action, by changing time of designation from “continuous” to “by NOTAM” serves to return all or part of special use airspace (SUA) to the National Airspace System (NAS). It is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

Regarding making using agency corrections to R-3804A, R-3804B, and R-3804C, the FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 311d. This action is an administrative change to the titles in the descriptions of the affected restricted areas to reflect the correct locations. It does not alter the dimensions, altitudes, times of designation or actual physical locations of the airspace; therefore, it is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106 (f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 73.38 [Amended]
2. Section 73.38 is amended as follows: R-3804A Fort Polk, LA (Amended)

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 31°00′53″ N., long. 93°08′12″ W.; to lat. 31°00′53″ N., long. 92°56′53″ W.; to lat. 31°00′20″ N., long. 92°56′14″ W.; to lat. 31°00′20″ N., long. 92°54′23″ W.; to lat. 31°03′55″ N., long. 92°51′34″ W.; to lat. 31°09′35″ N., long. 92°58′25″ W.; to lat. 31°09′35″ N., long. 93°00′56″ W.; to lat. 31°08′43″ N., long. 93°01′55″ W.; to lat. 31°08′43″ N., long. 93°08′12″ W.; to the point of beginning.

Designated altitudes. Surface to FL 180.

Time of designation. By NOTAM.

Controlling agency. FAA, Houston ARTCC.

Using agency. U.S. Army, Commanding General, Fort Polk, LA.

R-3804B Fort Polk, LA (Amended)

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 31°00′53″ N., long. 93°10′53″ W.; to lat. 31°00′53″ N., long. 93°08′12″ W.; to lat. 31°08′43″ N., long. 93°08′12″ W.; to lat. 31°08′43″ N., long. 93°11′00″ W.; to lat. 31°04′56″ N., long. 93°11′00″ W.; to lat. 31°04′15″ N., long. 93°12′31″ W.; to the point of beginning.

Designated altitudes. Surface to but not including 10,000 feet MSL.

Time of designation. By NOTAM.

Controlling agency. FAA, Houston ARTCC.

Using agency. U.S. Army, Commanding General, Fort Polk, LA.

R-3804C Fort Polk, LA (Amended)

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 31°00′53″ N., long. 93°08′12″ W.; to lat. 31°00′53″ N., long. 92°56′53″ W.; to lat. 31°00′20″ N., long. 92°56′14″ W.; to lat. 31°00′20″ N., long. 92°54′23″ W.; to lat. 31°03′55″ N., long. 92°51′34″ W.; to lat. 31°09′35″ N., long. 92°58′25″ W.; to lat. 31°09′35″ N., long. 93°00′56″ W.; to lat. 31°08′43″ N., long. 93°01′55″ W.; to lat. 31°08′43″ N., long. 93°08′12″ W.; to the point of beginning.

Designated altitudes. FL 180 to but not including FL 350.

Time of designation. By NOTAM 24 hours in advance.

Controlling agency. FAA, Houston ARTCC.

Using agency. U.S. Army, Commanding General, Fort Polk, LA.

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 11, 2015. M. Randy Willis, Acting Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2015-20286 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 882 [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-2737] Medical Devices; Neurological Devices; Classification of the Computerized Cognitive Assessment Aid AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Final order.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the computerized cognitive assessment aid into class II (special controls). The special controls that will apply to the device are identified in this order, and will be part of the codified language for the computerized cognitive assessment aid's classification. The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.

DATES:

This order is effective September 16, 2015. The classification was applicable on June 5, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter Como, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G242, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6919, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendment devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations.

Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1). Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2). Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk” or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.

In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA will classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device. On June 24, 2013, Cerebral Assessment Systems, Inc., submitted a request for classification of the Cognivue under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II (Ref. 1).

In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1). FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the request, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

Therefore, on June 5, 2015, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding § 882.1470.

Following the effective date of this final classification administrative order, any firm submitting a premarket notification [510(k)] for a computerized cognitive assessment aid will need to comply with the special controls named in the final order. The device is assigned the generic name computerized cognitive assessment aid, and it is identified as a prescription device that uses an individual's score(s) on a battery of cognitive tasks to provide an interpretation of the current level of cognitive function. The computerized cognitive assessment aid is used only as an assessment aid to determine level of cognitive functioning for which there exists other valid methods of cognitive assessment and does not identify the presence or absence of clinical diagnoses. The computerized cognitive assessment aid is not intended as a stand-alone or adjunctive diagnostic device.

FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device, as well as the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1:

Table 1—Computerized Cognitive Assessment Aid Risks and Mitigation Measures Identified risk Mitigation measure Equipment malfunction leading to subject injury (shock, burn, or mechanical failure) Electrical safety testing.
  • Labeling.
  • User discomfort (e.g., visual fatigue, stimulus-induced nausea) Labeling. Incorrect result, inclusive of:
  • • False positive—cognitive impairment when, in fact, none is present
  • • False negative—cognitive impairment when, in fact, cognitive impairment is present
  • Hardware and software verification, validation, and hazard analysis.
  • Labeling.
  • FDA believes that the following special controls, in addition to the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness:

    • The technical parameters of the device's hardware and software must be fully characterized and be accompanied by appropriate non-clinical testing:

    ○ Hardware specifications must be provided. Appropriate verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.

    ○ Software, including any proprietary algorithm(s) used by the device to arrive at its interpretation of the patient's cognitive function, must be described in detail in the Software Requirements Specification (SRS) and Software Design Specification (SDS). Appropriate software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.

    • The device must be designed and tested for electrical safety.

    • The labeling must include:

    ○ A summary of any testing conducted to demonstrate how the device functions as an interpretation of the current level of cognitive function. The summary of testing must include the following, if available: Any expected or observed adverse events and complications; any performance measurements including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) per the device intended use; a description of the repeatability of measurements; a description of how the cut-off values for categorization of measurements were determined; and a description of the construct validity of the device.

    ○ A warning that the device does not identify the presence or absence of clinical diagnoses.

    ○ A warning that the device is not a stand-alone diagnostic.

    ○ The intended use population and the intended use environment.

    ○ Any instructions technicians must convey to patients regarding the administration of the test and collection of cognitive test data.

    Computerized cognitive assessment aids are prescription devices restricted to patient use only upon the authorization of a practitioner licensed by law to administer or use the device; see 21 CFR 801.109 (Prescription devices).

    Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k), if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the computerized cognitive assessment aid they intend to market.

    II. Environmental Impact

    The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 807, subpart E regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

    IV. Reference

    The following reference has been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov.

    1. DEN130033: De Novo Request per 513(f)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act from Cerebral Assessment Systems, Inc., dated June 24, 2013. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 882

    Medical devices, Neurological devices.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 882 is amended as follows:

    PART 882—NEUROLOGICAL DEVICES 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 882 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.

    2. Add § 882.1470 to subpart B to read as follows:
    § 882.1470 Computerized cognitive assessment aid.

    (a) Identification. The computerized cognitive assessment aid is a prescription device that uses an individual's score(s) on a battery of cognitive tasks to provide an interpretation of the current level of cognitive function. The computerized cognitive assessment aid is used only as an assessment aid to determine level of cognitive functioning for which there exists other valid methods of cognitive assessment and does not identify the presence or absence of clinical diagnoses. The computerized cognitive assessment aid is not intended as a stand-alone or adjunctive diagnostic device.

    (b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special control(s) for this device are:

    (1) The technical parameters of the device's hardware and software must be fully characterized and be accompanied by appropriate non-clinical testing:

    (i) Hardware specifications must be provided. Appropriate verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.

    (ii) Software, including any proprietary algorithm(s) used by the device to arrive at its interpretation of the patient's cognitive function, must be described in detail in the software requirements specification (SRS) and software design specification (SDS). Appropriate software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.

    (2) The device must be designed and tested for electrical safety.

    (3) The labeling must include:

    (i) A summary of any testing conducted to demonstrate how the device functions as an interpretation of the current level of cognitive function. The summary of testing must include the following, if available: Any expected or observed adverse events and complications; any performance measurements including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) per the devices intended use; a description of the repeatability of measurements; a description of how the cut-off values for categorization of measurements were determined; and a description of the construct validity of the device.

    (ii) A warning that the device does not identify the presence or absence of clinical diagnoses.

    (iii) A warning that the device is not a stand-alone diagnostic.

    (iv) The intended use population and the intended use environment.

    (v) Any instructions technicians must convey to patients regarding the administration of the test and collection of cognitive test data.

    Dated: August 11, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20177 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 35 [Public Notice 9220] RIN 1400-AD85 Program Fraud Civil Remedies AGENCY:

    Department of State.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of State is updating its regulations regarding its implementation of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, to remove a conflict between the “reviewing official” and the “authority head” as defined by the implementing regulations.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective August 17, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alice Kottmyer, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, (202) 647-2318, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, 31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq. (the Act), outlines a procedure for establishing administrative procedures for imposing civil penalties and assessments against persons who make, submit, or present, or cause to be made, submitted, or presented, false fictitious, or fraudulent claims or written statements to authorities or to their agents; and specifying the hearing and appeal rights of persons subject to allegations of liability for such penalties and assessments. In a nutshell, the “investigating official” (who is in the Office of the Inspector General) presents a case to the “reviewing official” (currently defined as the Chief Financial Officer) who, if appropriate, forwards the case to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice will approve a “claim” if it believes further action is warranted. The reviewing official serves the claim on the respondent. There is a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), and a disposition adverse to the respondent can be appealed to the “authority head,” defined in the rule as the Under Secretary for Management.

    Currently, the Under Secretary for Management is designated by the President as the Chief Financial Officer for the Department of State. Therefore, he is the reviewing official as well as the authority head, which of course is unacceptable. This rule corrects that anomaly, by defining the “reviewing official” as the Assistant Legal Adviser for Buildings and Acquisitions (hereinafter, “the ALA”). The Under Secretary for Management remains the authority head.

    The Act (in 31 U.S.C. 3801(a)(8)) outlines the qualifications for the reviewing official, all of which are met by the ALA. (1) He or she must be designated by the authority head to make the determination under 31 U.S.C. 3803(a)(2) to send the case to the Department of Justice for its review and action, if appropriate. (2) He or she must be serving in a position for which the rate of basic pay is not less than the minimum rate of basic pay for grade GS-16 under the General Schedule; the ALA is a member of the Senior Executive Service, and thus has a rate of pay at least as high as GS-16, a grade which was eliminated under the provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. (3) He or she must not be subject to supervision by, or required to report to, the investigating official, and not employed in the organizational unit of the authority in which the investigating official is employed; the ALA is not in the Office of the Inspector General and is not (nor will he or she ever be) subject to the supervision of anyone in that office.

    Accordingly, 22 CFR 35.2(r), the definition of “reviewing official,” is changed by this rulemaking.

    Regulatory Findings Administrative Procedure Act

    This regulation amends a “rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice”, which is not subject to the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Therefore, the Department is issuing this amendment as a final rule.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business

    Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Nonetheless, consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804. The Department is aware of no monetary effect on the economy that would result from this rulemaking, nor will there be any increase in costs or prices; or any effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and import markets.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    The Department of State has reviewed this rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and has determined that the benefits of this regulation outweigh any cost. The Department does not consider this rule to be a economically significant rulemaking action.

    Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism

    This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The rule will not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders 12372 and 13132.

    Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform

    The Department has reviewed the regulation in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.

    Executive Order 13175

    The Department of State has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose or revise information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 35

    Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Fraud, Penalties.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, amend part 35 of title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 35—PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES 1. The authority citation for part 35 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    22 U.S.C. 2651a; 31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.

    2. Revise § 35.2(r) to read as follows:
    § 35.2 Definitions.

    (r) Reviewing official means the Assistant Legal Adviser for Buildings and Acquisitions or her or his designee who is—

    (1) Not subject to supervision by, or required to report to, the investigating official;

    (2) Not employed in the organizational unit of the authority in which the investigating official is employed; and

    (3) Serving in a position for which the rate of basic pay is not less than the minimum rate of basic pay for grade GS-16 under the General Schedule.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary of State for Management, Department of State.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20263 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Part 15 [Docket No. FR-5624-F-02] RIN 2501-AD57 Revision of Freedom of Information Act Regulation AGENCY:

    Office of the Deputy Secretary, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule amends HUD's regulations implementing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to update and streamline HUD's current FOIA regulation. Specifically, it updates HUD's regulations to reflect statutory changes to the FOIA, current HUD organizational structure, and current HUD policies and practices with respect to the FOIA. In addition, the rule uses current cost figures in calculating and charging fees. This final rule also incorporates changes made upon further evaluation of HUD's FOIA Regulation and in response to public comments received.

    DATES:

    Effective: September 16, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dolores W. Cole, Director, FOIA and Executive Correspondence, Office of Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10139, Washington, DC 20410-0500; telephone number 202-402-2671 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at telephone number 1-800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 15 contain the policies and procedures governing public access to HUD records under the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552). Subject to certain statutory exceptions, the FOIA gives persons the right to request and receive a wide range of information from any Federal agency. The FOIA has been amended several times since its enactment in 1966. In 2007, significant amendments to the FOIA were made by the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2007 (OPEN Government Act) (Pub. L. 110-175, approved December 31, 2007). The OPEN Government Act made several amendments to procedural issues affecting FOIA administration, including the protection of the fee status for news media, the time limits for agencies to act upon FOIA requests, the availability of agency records maintained by a private entity, the establishment of a FOIA Public Liaison and FOIA Requester Service Center, and the requirement to describe the exemptions authorizing the redaction of material provided under the FOIA.

    In addition to these statutory changes, several policy directives have been issued that affect HUD's FOIA program. These policy directives include Presidential memoranda dated January 21, 2009, entitled “Freedom of Information Act” (74 FR 4683, January 26, 2009), which applies a presumption of disclosure in FOIA decision-making and “Transparency and Open Government” (74 FR 4685, January 26, 2009), which encourages Federal agencies to harness new technologies to proactively post online information about their operations and decisions consistent with applicable law. As required by the Presidential memoranda, on March 19, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder issued comprehensive new FOIA guidelines (see http://www.justice.gov/ag/foia-memo-march2009.pdf). The Attorney General's guidance further advises that agencies should release information to the fullest extent of the law, including information that may be legally withheld, provided there is no foreseeable harm to an interest protected by an exemption or the disclosure is not prohibited by law. In addition, the Attorney General's FOIA guidelines emphasized that agencies must have effective systems in place for responding to FOIA requests.

    Consistent with this law and guidance, HUD undertook a comprehensive review of its FOIA regulation. As part of this review, HUD looked to the proposed updated FOIA regulation published by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15236). DOJ intended that its regulation serve as a model for all agencies in updating their own FOIA regulations.1 As a result of its review, HUD published a proposed rule on May 31, 2013 (78 FR 32595), modeled on DOJ's proposed regulation, to incorporate changes enacted by the OPEN Government Act of 2007, reflect developments in case law, include current cost figures for calculating and charging fees, and enhance the administration and operation of HUD's FOIA program by increasing the transparency and clarity of the regulation.

    1 See, http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/testimonies/witnesses/attachments/03/15/11/03-15-11-oip-pustay-testimony-re-the-freedom-of-information-act---ensuring-transparency-and-accountability-in-the-digital-age.pdf.

    II. Changes and Clarifications Made in This Final Rule

    This final rule follows publication of the May 31, 2013, proposed rule and takes into consideration the public comments received on the proposed rule. In response to public comment, a discussion of which is presented in the following section of this preamble, and in further consideration of issues addressed at the proposed rule stage, the Department is making the following changes at this final rule:

    • HUD is revising § 15.103(c) to state that HUD will provide written notice to requesters when the time limits for HUD's response will be delayed. HUD will also provide the requester with the date by which HUD expects to complete its processing of the request.

    • HUD is revising § 15.104(c)(3) to mirror the language of the FOIA. Specifically, HUD is removing the requirement that a representative of the news media, if not a full-time member of the news media, should establish that he or she is a person whose main professional activity or occupation is information dissemination.

    • HUD is revising § 15.106(c) to reduce the duplication costs that HUD will charge for a paper photocopy of a record from $0.18 per page to $0.10 per page.

    • HUD is revising § 15.107(a) to refer to the most current Executive order regarding classified information, which is Executive Order 13526, issued December 29, 2009.

    • HUD is removing proposed § 15.109 from this final rule. Upon review HUD has determined that, § 15.109, entitled “Mortgage sales,” directed itself to a specific HUD program rather than establish disclosure policy applicable throughout the Department. In addition, § 15.109 as proposed did not accurately describe the process that HUD uses to address FOIA requests for information arising out of HUD's mortgage sales program. As a result, HUD is removing § 15.109 as proposed from this final rule.

    • HUD is revising § 15.110(a) of the proposed rule (redesignated as § 15.109(a) in this final rule) to clarify that appeals may be submitted electronically.

    • HUD is revising § 15.111(a)(2) of the proposed rule (redesignated as § 15.110(a)(2) in this final rule) by adding paragraph (iii) to provide that HUD will notify requesters of dispute resolution services in its FOIA appeal determination response letter.

    III. Analysis of Public Comments

    The public comment period for the May 31, 2013, proposed rule closed on July 30, 2013, and HUD received three public comments on the proposed rule. Comments were submitted by a nonprofit organization devoted to issues of effective government and by two members of the public. HUD reviewed the comments and considered responses to them. This section presents the significant issues, questions, and suggestions submitted by the commenters and HUD's responses.

    Comment: HUD should expand online disclosures. One commenter recommended that HUD adopt a policy of proactively identifying records that are of interest to the public and posting such records online without waiting for FOIA requests. Accordingly, the commenter recommended that § 15.101 be revised to state that “HUD will proactively identify and disclose additional records of interest to the public.” The commenter added that the E-FOIA Act of 1996 mandates agencies to post online any information that has been released in response to a FOIA request and “is likely to become the subject of subsequent requests.” The commenter stated that some agencies have adopted the practice of posting all released records and suggested that HUD adopt this policy by revising its proposed rule to read: “HUD will post all records released in response to FOIA requests in a searchable format on the agency Web site.” Finally, the commenter stated that HUD should also revise § 15.101 by adopting a policy of publishing online its indexes of disclosed records.

    Response: Section 15.101 revises HUD's FOIA regulation to reflect its current practice of proactively identifying and disclosing frequently requested records without waiting for a FOIA request. HUD developed the list of documents that it posts without request based on its prior experience regarding agency records that generally are of interest to the public. This list is not exhaustive and the final rule provides HUD the flexibility to post additional records without request. Releasing all records requested, along with an index, as requested by the commenter, would be excessively burdensome for the agency. HUD believes that § 15.101, as drafted, successfully balances its commitment to transparency as directed by President Obama's memorandum and Attorney General Holder's FOIA Guidance, within the scope of HUD's available resources. Accordingly, HUD has determined not to revise this section as the commenter recommended.

    Comment: Information about the record sought. A commenter stated that clear and open communications between requesters and agency staff is vital to an effective, user-friendly FOIA process. Toward this end, the commenter recommended that HUD revise § 15.102(d)(2) to delete the first sentence that provides that FOIA requests “include, whenever possible, detailed and specific information about each record sought, such as the date, title or name, author, recipient, and subject matter of the record,” and substitute simply that FOIA requests should “reasonably describe the records sought.” The commenter also recommended that HUD delete the last sentence of this paragraph, which reads “Insufficient descriptions may lead HUD officials to contact the requester to seek additional information for their record search.”

    Response: HUD agrees that clear and open communications is vital to an effective and user-friendly FOIA process. Based on HUD's experience, § 15.102(d)(2) supports this goal by describing the type of information that will assist HUD to more promptly and effectively respond to a FOIA request. HUD therefore declines to revise § 15.102(d)(2) as suggested by the commenter.

    Comment: Notification of further clarification needed. A commenter stated that HUD should adopt a policy stating that it will contact the requester to seek clarification before denying a request on the basis of its not reasonably describing the records sought. The commenter suggested that HUD revise this section of the rule to state: “If HUD believes that a request may not reasonably describe the records sought, HUD will contact the requester to seek clarification. HUD will provide at least 30 days for the requester to respond. If the request has not been clarified after 30 days, HUD may decide to deny the request for not reasonably describing the records sought. If HUD determines that it must deny the request for not reasonably describing the records sought, it will notify the requester under the procedures in § 15.105(d)(2).”

    Response: HUD's current policy is to request clarification prior to issuing an adverse determination based on a requester's failure to reasonably describe the records sought. In addition, depending on the specific request, HUD may on a case-by-case basis establish time limits for the requester to provide clarification. HUD, therefore, believes that imposing a 30-day time period would unnecessarily limit the staff's ability to exercise discretion in processing these requests. HUD, therefore, declines to revise § 15.105(d)(2) as recommended by the commenter.

    Comment: Notification of delayed processing. A commenter recommended that HUD revise § 15.103(c) to state that HUD will notify requesters in writing as is required by FOIA when processing will be delayed.

    Response: HUD agrees with the commenter and revises § 15.103(c) of the final rule to mirror the language of the FOIA by providing that, in unusual circumstances, the time limits prescribed in the regulation may be extended by written notice to the requester making such request. The written notice will also set forth the unusual circumstances for such extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be released.

    Comment: Phrasing of revised language in § 15.104(c)(3). A commenter stated that language in proposed § 15.104(c)(3), which would require requesters who are not full-time members of the news media to submit a statement establishing that the requester “is a person whose main professional activity or occupation is information dissemination” when requesting expedited processing of a request, changes the meaning of FOIA. According to the commenter, this requirement is not found in FOIA and excludes an entire class of individuals, such as bloggers and other participants and thought leaders of the digital world who may be well positioned to expedite dissemination of information. The commenter recommended that the reference to “main professional activity or occupation” be removed and that § 15.104(c)(3) be revised to mirror FOIA.

    Response: HUD agrees that the language in the final rule should mirror the language in the FOIA and therefore revises § 15.104(c)(3) to require that the requester be “primarily engaged in disseminating information.” References to requirements that the requester, “if not a full-time member of the news media, should establish that he or she is a person whose main professional activity or occupation is information dissemination,” have been deleted.

    Comment: Notification of rerouting and referrals. Two commenters recommended that HUD revise the rule to improve communications with the requester. These commenters recommended that HUD notify the requester if it reroutes the request to another government agency or second HUD office, as is permitted during the 10-day window immediately following HUD's receipt of the initial FOIA request. The commenters described this change as a modest step that is consistent with the policies of other Federal agencies and which would benefit HUD by reducing the number of requester inquiries made to the HUD FOIA office.

    Response: HUD's current policy is to notify requesters that their request is being rerouted or referred to another Federal agency or a second HUD office. Federal agencies to which requests are referred follow their own policies to ensure that requesters are notified that their FOIA requests have been received. In addition, requesters can identify the HUD FOIA office to which their request has been rerouted by checking the status of their request online at http://www.hud.gov/FOIA. Because these options are available to requesters, HUD declines to revise § 15.105 to adopt the commenters' recommendations.

    Comment: Keeping requesters informed regarding updates on the status of their FOIA requests. A commenter recommended that HUD revise § 15.105 to include provisions that would require HUD to notify all requesters as soon as practicable of the estimated time it will take to complete a request and provide requesters with the opportunity to reformulate their requests. The commenter also recommended that HUD revise the rule to provide on the agency's Web site automated updates on the status of FOIA requests and suggested that HUD can implement this recommendation by joining the multiagency portal FOIA online, which allows requesters to track the status of requests online.

    Response: Section 15.103(a) provides that HUD generally will respond to a FOIA request within 20 working days of receipt. As discussed in this preamble, HUD is revising this section in the final rule to state that it will provide written notice to requesters when it extends the time to process a request, and will also provide the requester with the date by which HUD expects to complete its processing of the request. Given the number, unpredictability, and variability in type and scope of FOIA requests that HUD receives, however, it would be extremely difficult for HUD to offer specific dates by which it could estimate the processing time for any specific FOIA request not subject to § 15.103(a). In addition, HUD provides requesters the ability to verify the status of their FOIA requests through an online tool that is similar to FOIAonline and that is available at http://www.hud.gov/FOIA. Finally, HUD believes that the rule already addresses the commenter's concern that requesters be granted an opportunity to reformulate requests during the process. For example, § 15.103(c) provides that HUD will offer the requester the opportunity to limit the scope of a request if HUD determines that providing responsive documents will take more than the 10 working days established in § 15.103(a). For these reasons, HUD declines to revise the rule as recommended by the commenter.

    Comment: Electronic communications. A commenter recommended that HUD adopt a policy to communicate with requesters by email, where appropriate, as digital communications are changing the way government connects with citizens, and email communications could result in cost savings for the agency.

    Response: The FOIA does not require agencies to use a specific means to communicate with requesters. HUD currently communicates with requesters by email, when appropriate, and will continue to do so. At the same time, HUD requires the discretion to use physical mail when it deems necessary. For these reasons, HUD declines to revise the rule as recommended by the commenter.

    Comment: Plain communications. A commenter stated that the Plain Writing Act of 2010 directs agencies to use “writing that is clear, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and intended audience” in any document that “provides information about Federal Government benefit or service.” The commenter recommended that HUD revise § 15.105 to state: “HUD will use plain language in all communications with requesters.”

    Response: HUD's current policy is to use plain language for all communications with the public. Some requests, however, require the production of records that are inherently technical or drafted for audiences with more technical backgrounds or expertise than the general public. As a result, HUD concludes that adding the language suggested by the commenter would be superfluous and may mislead requesters to expect HUD to translate technical documents into plain language. HUD therefore declines to amend this section in the final rule as requested by the commenter.

    Comment: Release records on a rolling basis. A commenter stated that HUD should revise § 15.105 to require HUD to release records on a rolling basis, where requests involve a voluminous amount of material or searches in multiple locations.

    Response: HUD's existing policy allows individual HUD FOIA offices to decide whether to release voluminous amounts of records on a rolling basis or all at once, depending on the specific request, the difficulty of collecting records responsive to the request, and the effective administration of the office's internal FOIA processing. HUD declines to revise this section of the rule in order to permit individual HUD FOIA offices the continued discretion over the appropriate approach to releasing records.

    Comment: Rate of per-page printing. Two commenters stated that HUD's fee of $0.18 per page is a potential impediment to requests from members of the public, that it is higher than the rate imposed by other agencies, and that it does not reflect the amount that it costs HUD to print on a page. Both commenters recommended that HUD establish a standard fee of $0.10 per page. In addition, one commenter recommended that HUD revise the regulation to provide that it will not charge a fee if the total fee does not exceed $50, instead of the $25 threshold proposed by § 15.106(d)(4). The commenter stated that charging requesters the costs for producing small FOIA requests is uneconomical and contributes to processing delays. The commenter also stated that revising the $25 threshold would streamline the processing of requests that cost HUD less than $50.

    Response: HUD appreciates the commenters' recommendations. HUD has reviewed its FOIA fee structure and agrees that it should revise its longstanding policy of charging $0.18 per page to the standard fee of $0.10 per page. Section 15.106(c) is revised to reflect this change. HUD's cost of responding to a request, however, has not changed. As a result, HUD will continue its practice of not charging the requester for processing a request if the total fee does not exceed $25. Based on HUD's experience, even at this $25 threshold, most requesters will still not be charged a processing fee.

    Comment: Fee Waivers. A commenter stated that the proposed § 15.106(k)(5), which would give HUD discretion to consider “the cost effectiveness of its investment of administrative resources” when deciding whether to grant requests for a fee waiver or reduction, contradicts the plain language of FOIA. The commenter asserted that FOIA provides that agencies do not have authority to consider additional factors when deciding to waive or reduce fees if the statutory conditions are met. Accordingly, the commenter recommended that § 15.106(k)(5) be struck from the final rule.

    Response: Section 552(a)(4)(A)(i) of the FOIA states that, “[i]n order to carry out the provisions of this section, each agency shall promulgate regulations . . . establishing procedures and guidelines for determining when such fees should be waived or reduced.” Accordingly, HUD is properly exercising its statutorily granted discretion in establishing that it will consider additional factors in deciding whether to grant requests for a fee waiver or reduction. HUD therefore declines to remove § 15.106(k)(5) from the final rule.

    Comment: Applying “foreseeable harm” standard for withholding. A commenter stated that HUD should adopt a policy of applying a presumption of openness in processing requests and of only withholding information if it reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by one of the statutory exemptions. According to the commenter, applying this “foreseeable harm” standard would help to ensure that HUD does not improperly withhold information. The commenter recommends that HUD revise § 15.107 to add that “HUD will conduct a foreseeable harm analysis, which clearly identifies the harm that would occur with disclosure.”

    Response: HUD withholds documents according to the nine FOIA statutory exemptions that protect various records from disclosure (see 5 U.S.C. 552(b)), in conjunction with existing case law and publicly available guidance issued by the Department of Justice. When the request is one that appropriately raises questions of foreseeable harm, HUD staff analyzes the request in light of this standard. Not all requests require this level of review. Accordingly, HUD declines to amend the regulation to incorporate a standard that is not currently reflected in the FOIA.

    Comment: Technical amendment to source reference. A commenter recommended that § 15.107(a) be updated to refer to the most current Executive order regarding classified information, which is Executive Order 13526, issued December 29, 2009.

    Response: HUD agrees with the commenter and updates this reference in the final rule.

    Comment: Avoiding frivolous claims of confidential business information. A commenter suggested that HUD require that submitters of confidential business information use good faith efforts to designate any information that such submitters consider exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 4, and that HUD indicate in this final rule what constitutes a “good faith effort.” Specifically, the commenter suggested editing § 15.108(b) to read: “A blanket designation on each page of a submission that all information contained on the page is protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 presumptively will not be considered a good faith effort.”

    Response: Section 15.108(b) of the rule already requires submitters of business information to “use good faith efforts to designate . . . any portion of its submission that it considers to be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4.” Furthermore, the commenter's suggested language could create undue processing delays by creating the presumption that entire pages marked as “business information” are not marked as such in good faith. In practice, the determination of what constitutes a good faith effort does not hinge on the number of submitted pages entirely marked as “business information.” HUD therefore declines to amend this provision.

    Comment: Decreased notifications to submitters of “business information.” The commenter also suggested that in the interest of avoiding undue delays, HUD establish that it is unnecessary to notify submitters of business information if HUD determines that the claim of confidential business information is obviously frivolous. The commenter also recommended that HUD provide specific time limits, generally 5 working days, for submitters to object to the release of submitted information and this proposed change be incorporated in § 15.108(e).

    Response: HUD's current policy regarding the obligation to notify submitters of business information is to provide all of the basic procedural protections that HUD is required to give submitters under Executive Order 12600. It currently is already HUD's practice to grant submitters a reasonable number of days to object to the release of submitted information, as is required by Executive Order 12600, and to require that such objections be justified. HUD therefore declines to amend this provision in the final rule.

    Comment: Copies of the original request and adverse determination. A commenter stated that requiring requesters to provide a copy of their original request is unnecessary and unfair because original requests might be difficult to locate after years pass between the time of submission and the appeal. The commenter added that HUD should remove this requirement, as well as the requirement for a copy of the adverse determination, from the proposed rule because many individuals do not have access to a scanner or a photocopier. The commenter suggested that HUD instead “encourage” appellants to provide these two copies.

    Response: Because HUD often processes multiple requests from the same requester, provision of a copy of the original request and of the original adverse determination helps HUD's reviewing staff to ensure that they issue accurate responses to the original concern or request. Requesting the submission of these copies with an appeal does not pose an unnecessary and unfair burden upon requesters. HUD believes that most requesters have several tools available to make photocopies of important documents, with no exceptional inconvenience to them. In exceptional circumstances, however, requesters might be able to obtain a scanned or printed copy of their original request by contacting the HUD FOIA office handling the request. HUD, therefore, declines to amend § 15.110 of the proposed rule as recommended.

    Comment: Providing a longer time period to submit appeals. A commenter suggested that HUD provide requesters with a minimum of 60 days to submit their administrative appeals, instead of the 30 days provided under the rule. The commenter added that this would provide requesters adequate time to gather the necessary information and to formulate any arguments they wish to make in the appeal.

    Response: The FOIA provides agencies discretion in setting forth deadlines by which requesters must file their administrative appeals of adverse determinations. HUD's current policy of allowing a requester 30 days to submit an appeal is intended to ensure that FOIA requests and disputes are resolved as promptly as possible. Because an extension of this filing period would defeat this policy goal, HUD declines to amend this provision to, instead, grant requesters 60 days to file appeals to adverse determinations as recommended.

    Comment: Electronic process for appeal submissions. A commenter recommended that HUD provide requesters the option to submit their administrative appeals by email or through the HUD Web site, as opposed to the current process, which requires the submission of appeals “in writing to the address specified in HUD's notice responding to a FOIA request.”

    Response: HUD does not believe that § 15.110 of the proposed rule (redesignated as § 15.109 in this final rule) precludes the submission of an appeal electronically. Nevertheless, HUD has clarified that appeals may be submitted electronically by stating, “If the letter of appeal is transmitted electronically or by a means other than the U.S. Postal Service, it must be received in the appropriate office by the close of business on the 30th calendar day after the date of HUD's letter of determination.” HUD agrees with the commenter, however, that the public should have the option of submitting their appeals electronically. As a result, HUD has recently expanded its FOIA management system (FMS2), to accommodate the receipt of FOIA appeals electronically. HUD's FOIA management system includes a public access link that allows members of the public to submit FOIA requests electronically and track the status of their requests. HUD agrees that extending these capabilities to the submission of appeals will expedite the review of appeals and ensure that the public is better informed regarding the status of their appeals.

    Comment: Notifying requesters of dispute resolution services available for appeal determinations. A commenter stated that HUD should adopt a policy of notifying requesters of dispute resolution services in appeal determination letters. The commenter added that HUD should revise the language at § 15.111(a)(2)(ii) of the proposed rule to add: “HUD will provide the requester with the name and contact information of the Office of Government Information Services, which offers mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation.”

    Response: HUD has considered the commenter's suggestion and agrees to provide requesters notification of dispute resolution services in the appeal determination letters. In addition, HUD will post the contact information for the Office of Government Information Services on its FOIA Web site. See § 15.110(a)(2)(iii).

    IV. Findings and Certifications Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if the regulation is necessary, to select the regulatory approach that maximizes net benefits. Because this final rule incorporates changes enacted by the OPEN Government Act of 2007 and otherwise updates and streamlines HUD's current FOIA regulation, the rule was determined to not be a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and therefore was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    Environmental Impact

    This final rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321). The revision of FOIA-related provisions of 24 CFR part 15 falls within the exclusion provided by 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1) in that it does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for or otherwise govern or regulate real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule establishes the process by which HUD will respond to requests for information under the FOIA. Costs assessed by HUD for search, review, and duplication required to process the information requested by a requester are limited by the FOIA to direct costs and are not economically significant. As a result, the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This final rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive order.

    Unfunded Mandates

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector. This final rule does not impose any Federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, within the meaning of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

    List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 15

    Classified information, Courts, Freedom of information, Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, HUD amends 24 CFR part 15 as follows:

    PART 15—PUBLIC ACCESS TO HUD RECORDS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND TESTIMONY AND PRODUCTION OF INFORMATION BY HUD EMPLOYEES Subpart A—General Provisions 1. The authority for 24 CFR part 15 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 5 U.S.C. 552.

    2. Revise subpart A to read as follows: Subpart A—General Provisions Sec. 15.1  General provisions. 15.2 Definitions.
    § 15.1 General provisions.

    (a) Scope. Requests for material from HUD will be processed as set forth in this part. The Federal Housing Administration and the Government National Mortgage Association are components of HUD and are also covered by this part.

    (b) Subpart B. Subpart B of this part contains the rules that HUD follows in processing requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552). These rules should be read together with the FOIA, which provides additional information about access to records maintained by HUD. Information routinely provided to the public as part of a regular Department activity may be provided to the public without following this subpart.

    (c) Subpart C. Subpart C of this part describes the procedures to be followed and standards to be applied in processing demands for the production of material or provision of testimony in legal proceedings among private litigants.

    (d) Subpart D. Subpart D of this part describes the procedures to be followed and standards to be applied in processing demands for the production of material or provision of testimony in legal proceedings in which the United States is a party.

    (e) Inspector General. Subparts B and C of this part do not apply to the Office of Inspector General. The procedures that apply to the Office of Inspector General are described in parts 2002 and 2004 of this title.

    § 15.2 Definitions.

    (a) The following definitions apply to this part.

    Agency record means any documentary material that is either created or obtained by an agency in the transaction of agency business and is under agency control. “Agency record” does not include records that are not already in existence and which would have to be created specifically to meet a request.

    Business information means commercial or financial information provided to HUD by a submitter that arguably is protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 (42 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) of the FOIA.

    FOIA means the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

    HUD means the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

    Review means the examination of a record located in response to a request in order to determine whether any portion of it is exempt from disclosure. Review time includes processing any record for disclosure (for example, doing all that is necessary to redact it and prepare it for disclosure). Review costs are recoverable even if a record ultimately is not disclosed. Review time includes time spent considering any formal objection to disclosure, made by a business submitter under § 15.108, but does not include time spent resolving general legal or policy issues regarding the application of exemptions.

    Search means the process of looking for and retrieving records or information responsive to a request. It includes page-by-page or line-by-line identification of information within records and also includes reasonable efforts to locate and retrieve information from records maintained in electronic form or format.

    Secretary means the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

    Submitter means any person or entity that provides business information, directly or indirectly, to HUD. The term includes, but is not limited to, corporations, State governments, and foreign governments.

    (b) The following definitions apply to subparts C and D of this part.

    Appropriate Associate General Counsel means the Associate General Counsel for Litigation or the Associate General Counsel for HUD Headquarters employees in those programs for which the Associate General Counsel provides legal advice.

    Appropriate Regional Counsel means the Regional Counsel for the regional office having delegated authority over the project or activity with respect to which the information is sought. For assistance in identifying the Appropriate Regional Counsel, see appendix A to this part.

    Authorized Approving Official means the Secretary, General Counsel, Appropriate Associate General Counsel, or Appropriate Regional Counsel.

    Demand means a subpoena, order, or other demand of a court or other authority that is issued in a legal proceeding and any accompanying submissions.

    Employee of the Department means a current or former officer or employee of the United States appointed by or subject to the supervision of the Secretary, but does not include an officer or employee covered by part 2004 of this title.

    Good cause means necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to promote a significant interest of the Department.

    Legal proceeding includes any proceeding before a court of law or other authority; e.g., an administrative board or commission, a hearing officer, an arbitrator, or other body conducting a quasi-judicial or legislative proceeding.

    Legal proceeding among private litigants means any legal proceeding in which the United States is not a party.

    Legal proceeding in which the United States is a party means any legal proceeding including as a named party the United States, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, any other Federal executive or administrative agency or department, or any official thereof in his official capacity.

    Material means either documents or information contained in, or relating to contents of, the files of the Department, or documents or information acquired by any person, while such person was an employee of the Department, as a part of the performance of his or her official duties or because of his or her official status.

    Production means to produce material by any means other than through the provision of oral testimony.

    Testimony means any oral or written statements made in litigation under oath or penalty of perjury.

    United States means the Federal Government of the United States (including the Department), the Secretary, and any employees of the Department in their official capacities.

    3. Revise subpart B to read as follows: Subpart B. Procedures for Disclosure of Records Under the FOIA Sec. 15.101 roactive disclosures of department records. 15.102 Requirements for making requests for records. 15.103 Timing of responses to requests. 15.104 Procedures for processing FOIA requests. 15.105 Responses to requests. 15.106 Fees. 15.107 Documents generally protected from disclosure. 15.108 Business information. 15.109 Appeals. 15.110 HUD response to appeals.
    § 15.101 Proactive disclosures of department records.

    (a) In General. Records that are required to be made available for public inspection and copying are accessible on the Department's Web site at http://www.hud.gov/FOIA. Published agency records, whether or not they are available for purchase, are made available for examination. Each HUD office (headquarters and field) has a FOIA Public Liaison that can assist individuals in locating records. A list of the Department's FOIA Public Liaisons is available at http://www.hud.gov/FOIA.

    (b) Electronic FOIA reading room. As required by 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2), HUD makes records created on or after November 1, 1996, available through its electronic FOIA Reading Room, located on HUD's FOIA Web site at http://www.hud.gov/FOIA. These records include:

    (1) Final opinions and orders.

    (2) Public access to high-value, machine readable datasets via http://www/data/gov.

    (3) Statements of policy and interpretation, including:

    (i) HUD's Client and Information Policy Systems (HUDCLIPS);

    (ii) Housing policy;

    (iii) Public and Indian Housing policy and regulations;

    (iv) Public and Indian Housing policy and guidance (PHA Plans); and

    (v) Community Planning and Development policy and guidance.

    (4) Administrative staff manuals.

    (5) HUD's online library.

    (6) Fair housing information.

    (c) Frequently requested materials. HUD also makes frequently requested materials available on its FOIA Web site at http://www.hud.gov/FOIA. These frequently requested materials include information related to:

    (1) Highest-scoring funding grant applications.

    (2) Purchase charge cardholders.

    (3) FHA refunds.

    (4) FHA-approved lenders.

    (5) Homes for sale.

    (6) How to buy a HUD home.

    (7) How to apply for public housing and Section 8 housing.

    (8) Housing for the elderly.

    (9) Housing for individuals with disabilities.

    (10) HUD contracting home page.

    (11) FHA mortgage insurance programs.

    (12) HUD handbooks.

    (13) HUD programs.

    (14) HUD telephone directory.

    (15) HUD homes listing.

    (16) HUD's organization.

    (17) Multifamily housing data.

    (18) Public housing authority contact information.

    (19) Weekly listing of multifamily properties for sale.

    (20) Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) materials.

    (21) Grants.

    (22) FOIA request logs.

    § 15.102 Requirements for making requests for records.

    (a) In general. Any request for HUD records must be made in writing and submitted to the FOIA Public Liaison in the HUD field office where the records are located or to the Office of the Executive Secretariat in HUD Headquarters if the request is for records located in HUD Headquarters.

    (b) HUD field office records. Requests for records located in a HUD field office may be submitted by mail (including courier or delivery service), email, or facsimile to the FOIA Public Liaison at the field office.

    (c) HUD headquarters records. Requests for records located in HUD Headquarters may be submitted via an electronic request form on HUD's FOIA Web site at http://www.hud.gov/FOIA. Requests can also be submitted in person or by mail (including courier or delivery service), email, or facsimile to the Office of the Executive Secretariat in HUD Headquarters.

    (d) Form of requests. FOIA requests should:

    (1) Be in writing and clearly identifiable as a FOIA request. To facilitate identification, the requester should place the phrase “FOIA Request” on the front of the envelope or on the cover sheet or other transmittal document used when submitting the request in person or by mail, email, facsimile, or electronic request form;

    (2) Include, whenever possible, detailed and specific information about each record sought, such as the date, title or name, author, recipient, and subject matter of the record. The more specific the FOIA request for records, the more likely HUD officials will be able to locate the records requested. Requests for categories of information should be for specific and well-defined categories. Insufficient descriptions may lead HUD officials to contact the requester to seek additional information for their record search;

    (3) Indicate the form or format in which the requester would like the record made available, if the requester has a preference;

    (4) Specify the fee amount the requester is willing to pay. In general, HUD provides records at no cost up to $25. Requesters are required to agree to pay for any costs that exceed $25. Requesters may also request a dollar amount above which HUD should consult with them before they agree to pay the fee. If a requester seeks a fee waiver or reduction, the requester should include this request with the FOIA disclosure request and should describe, consistent with § 15.106(k), how the disclosure of the requested information is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester;

    (5) Indicate the fee category that the requester believes applies to each of his or her requests (fee categories are defined in § 15.106(b));

    (6) Include verification information of the requester's identity, if the requester requests agency records pertaining to the requester, a minor, or an individual who is legally incompetent. Information about what constitutes acceptable verification information can be found in HUD's Privacy Act regulations in 24 CFR part 16;

    (7) Contain signed authorization from the other person, if the requester makes a request on another person's behalf for information about that person. If necessary, HUD will inform the requester of the authorization needed from the other person and give the requester an opportunity to provide such authorization. Requests for information about another person should be accompanied by either written, notarized authorization or proof that the individual is deceased (for example, a copy of a death certificate or an obituary), or the request will be deemed insufficient; and

    (8) Contain a detailed explanation of the basis for the request, if the requester makes a request for expedited processing as provided by § 15.104(c). The requester should also include a statement certifying the truth of the circumstances alleged or other evidence, acceptable to HUD, of the requester's compelling need.

    § 15.103 Timing of responses to requests.

    (a) In general. HUD will generally respond to a FOIA request within 20 working days, depending on the size of the request. The 20-day period will begin on the day the request is received by the appropriate component of HUD, but in any event not later than 10 working days after the request is received by any component of HUD designated to receive FOIA requests.

    (b) Tolling the 20-day time period. Under the OPEN Government Act of 2007, HUD may toll the 20-day period:

    (1) One time to make a reasonable request for additional information from the requester; or

    (2) As many times as necessary to clarify issues regarding fee assessment with the requester. The agency's receipt of the requester's response to the agency's request for information or resolution of all fee assessment issues ends the tolling period.

    (c) Extension of time periods for processing a request. In unusual circumstances, as defined in this paragraph, HUD may extend the time period for processing a FOIA request. In such circumstances, HUD will provide the requester with written notice setting forth the unusual circumstances for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. This date will not exceed 10 working days beyond the general time limit established in paragraph (a) of this section. If processing a request would require more than 10 working days beyond the general time limit established in paragraph (a) of this section, HUD will offer the requester an opportunity to limit the scope of the request so that HUD may process it within the extra 10-day working period or arrange an alternative time period within which the FOIA request will be processed. For purposes of this section, unusual circumstances include:

    (1) The need to search for and collect records not located in the office processing the request;

    (2) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records; or

    (3) The need to consult with another agency or two or more HUD components having a substantial interest in the determination of the FOIA request.

    (d) Aggregating multiple requests. (1) HUD may aggregate multiple requests in cases where unusual circumstances exist and HUD determines that:

    (i) Certain requests from the same requester or from a group of requesters acting in concert actually constitute a single request; and

    (ii) The requests involve clearly related matters.

    (2) Aggregation of requests for this purpose will be conducted independent of aggregation of requests for fee purposes under § 15.106(h).

    § 15.104 Procedures for processing FOIA requests.

    (a) In general. HUD will ordinarily respond to FOIA requests according to their order of receipt.

    (b) Tracking number. FOIA requests will be logged in the order that they are received and be assigned a tracking number. A requester should use the tracking number to identify his or her request when contacting FOIA office for any reason.

    (c) Expedited processing. (1) Requests and appeals will be taken out of order and given expedited treatment whenever it is determined that they involve:

    (i) Circumstances in which the lack of expedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual;

    (ii) An urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal Government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information; or

    (iii) The loss of substantial due process rights.

    (2) A request for expedited processing may be made at the time of the initial request for records or at any later time. For a prompt determination, a request for expedited processing should be received by the proper office designated to receive FOIA requests as provided in § 15.102.

    (3) A requester who seeks expedited processing should submit a statement, certified to be true and correct to the best of that person's knowledge and belief, explaining in detail the basis for requesting expedited processing. For example, a requester who makes a request under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, if not a full-time member of the news media, should establish that he or she is a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, though it need not be his or her sole occupation. A requester making a request under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section also should establish a particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity involved in the request, beyond the public's right to know about government activity generally. The formality of certification may be waived as a matter of administrative discretion.

    (4) HUD will make a determination within 10 calendar days of receipt by the appropriate component of HUD, as provided in § 15.103, whether to grant or deny a request for expedited processing and notify the requester of HUD's determination. FOIA requests accepted for expedited processing will be processed as soon as practicable and on a priority basis.

    (d) Multitrack processing. (1) For requests that do not qualify for expedited processing, HUD may use two or more processing tracks by distinguishing between simple and complex FOIA requests based on the following: The time and work necessary to process the FOIA request and the volume of agency records responsive to the FOIA request.

    (2) When HUD uses multitrack processing, it may provide requesters in its slower track an opportunity to limit the scope of their requests in order to qualify for faster processing within the specified limits of HUD's faster track. When HUD chooses to provide this option, HUD will contact the requester by telephone, letter, or email, whichever is more efficient in each case.

    § 15.105 Responses to requests.

    (a) Acknowledgements of requests. The FOIA office in the Office of the Executive Secretariat in HUD Headquarters and FOIA Public Liaison in each HUD field office will ordinarily send an acknowledgement letter to the requester that will confirm receipt of the request by the appropriate HUD office and provide an assigned tracking number, as provided by § 15.104(b), for further reference.

    (b) Consultations, coordination, and referrals. When HUD receives a request for a record in its possession, it shall determine whether another agency of the Federal Government is better able to determine whether the record is exempt from disclosure under the FOIA or whether it should be disclosed as a matter of administrative discretion. If HUD determines that it is best able to determine whether the record is exempt from disclosure, then it shall do so. If HUD determines that it is not best able to make that determination, then it shall either:

    (1) Respond to the request regarding that record, after consulting with the agency best able to determine whether to disclose it and with any other agency that has a substantial interest in it; or

    (2) Refer the responsibility for responding to the request regarding that record to the agency that originated the record, but only if that agency is subject to the FOIA. Ordinarily, the agency with which the record originated will be presumed to be best able to determine whether to disclose it.

    (c) Fee estimates. HUD will notify the requester if HUD's estimate of the fee is more than the requester has agreed to pay. Consistent with § 15.106(e), the requester shall have 15 working days to agree to pay the higher fee.

    (d) Forms of response. (1) Granting requests in whole or in part. Once HUD makes a determination to grant a request in whole or in part, it will notify the requester in writing. HUD will make a record available in the form or format requested, if the record is readily reproducible in that format. HUD will inform the requester in the notice of any fee charged under § 15.106 and disclose records to the requester promptly upon payment of any applicable fee. Records disclosed in part will be marked or annotated to show the amount of information deleted and the exemption(s) under which each deletion is made, unless doing so would harm an interest protected by an applicable FOIA exemption. The location of the information deleted and the exemption(s) under which the deletion is made will be indicated directly on the record itself, if technically feasible.

    (2) Adverse determination of requests. If a determination is made to deny a request in any respect, HUD shall notify the requester of that determination in writing. Adverse determinations, or denials of requests, include: A determination to withhold any requested record, in whole or in part; a determination that a requested record does not exist, cannot be located, or has not been retained; a determination that a record is not readily reproducible in the form or format sought by the requester; a determination that what has been requested is not a record subject to the FOIA; a determination on any disputed fee matter, including a denial of a request for a fee waiver or reduction; and a denial of a request for expedited treatment. The denial letter shall be signed by the Director of the Office of the Executive Secretariat, or a designee of the Director, in HUD Headquarters or the FOIA Public Liaison for the HUD field office where the adverse determination was made, and shall include:

    (i) The name and title or position of the person responsible for the denial;

    (ii) A brief statement of the reason(s) for the denial, including any FOIA exemption applied by HUD in denying the request;

    (iii) An estimate of the volume of records or information withheld, when appropriate, in number of pages or in some other reasonable form of estimation. This estimate does not need to be provided if the volume is otherwise indicated through deletions on records disclosed in part, or if providing an estimate would harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption; and

    (iv) A statement that the denial may be appealed as provided by § 15.109 and a description of the requirements for appeal.

    § 15.106 Fees.

    (a) In general. HUD will charge for processing requests under the FOIA in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, except where fees are limited under paragraph (d) of this section or where a waiver or reduction of fees is granted under paragraph (k) of this section. HUD shall collect all applicable fees before sending copies of requested records to a requester. In order to resolve any fee issues that arise under this section, HUD may contact a requester for additional information. Requesters shall pay fees by check or money order made payable to the United States Treasury.

    (b) Definitions. For purposes of this section:

    Commercial use means a request from or on behalf of a person who seeks information for a use or purpose that furthers his or her commercial, trade, or profit interests, which can include furthering those interests through litigation. HUD shall determine, whenever reasonably possible, the use to which a requester will put the requested records. When it appears that the requester will put the records to a commercial use, either because of the nature of the request itself or because HUD has reasonable cause to doubt a requester's stated use, HUD shall provide the requester a reasonable opportunity to submit further clarification.

    Direct costs means those expenses that HUD actually incurs in searching for and duplicating and, in the case of commercial use requests, reviewing records to respond to a FOIA request. Direct costs include, for example, the salary of the employee performing the work and the cost of operating computers and other electronic equipment, such as for mainframe computer run time. Not included in direct costs are overhead expenses such as the costs of space and heating or lighting a facility.

    Duplication means the process of making a copy of a document necessary to respond to a FOIA request. Such copies can take the form of paper copy, audiovisual materials, or machine readable documentation (e.g., diskette), among others. HUD shall honor a requester's specified preference of form or format of disclosure if the record is readily reproducible with reasonable efforts in the requested form or format by the office responding to the request.

    Educational institution means:

    (i)(A) A preschool;

    (B) A public or private elementary or secondary school;

    (C) An institution of graduate higher education;

    (D) An institution of undergraduate higher education;

    (E) An institution of professional education; or

    (F) An institution of vocational education, that primarily (or solely) operates a program or programs of scholarly research.

    (ii) To be in this category, a requester should show that the request is authorized by, and is made under the auspices of, a qualifying institution and that the records are not sought for a commercial use but are sought to further scholarly research. Records requested for the intention of fulfilling credit requirements are not considered to be sought for a scholarly purpose.

    Other requester means any requester that does not fall within the categories of requesters described in this section.

    Noncommercial scientific institution means an institution that is not operated on a “commercial” basis, as defined in this section, and that is operated solely for the purpose of conducting scientific research the results of which are not intended to promote any particular product or industry. To be in this category, a requester should show that the request is authorized by, and is made under the auspices of, a qualifying institution and that the records are not sought for a commercial use but are sought to further scientific research.

    Representative of the news media, or news media requester, means any person actively gathering news for an entity that is organized and operated to publish or broadcast news to the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience. The term news means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public. Examples of news media entities include television or radio stations broadcasting to the public at large and publishers of periodicals that disseminate news and make their products available to the general public through a variety of means. For freelance journalists to be regarded as working for a news media entity, they should demonstrate a solid basis for expecting publication through a news media entity. A publication contract would be the clearest proof, but HUD will also look to the past publication record of a requester in making this determination. To be in this category a requester should not be seeking the requested records for a commercial use. However, a request for records supporting the news dissemination function of the requester shall not be considered to be for a commercial use.

    (c) Fees—(1) Schedule. In responding to FOIA requests, HUD will use the fee schedule set out in the following table, unless a waiver or reduction of fees has been granted under paragraph (k) of this section.

    FOIA Fee Schedule Activity Rate Commercial use requester News media, educational institution, or
  • noncommercial scientific
  • institution requester
  • Other requester
    (i) Professional search $13 per quarter hour Applies Does not apply Applies. No charge for first 2 hours of cumulative search time. (ii) Professional review $13 per quarter hour Applies Does not apply Does not apply. (iii) Clerical search $6 per quarter hour Applies Does not apply Applies. No charge for first 2 hours of cumulative search time. (iv) Clerical review $6 per quarter hour Applies Does not apply Does not apply. (v) Programming services required Direct costs associated with search Applies Does not apply Applies. (vi) Duplication costs $0.10 per page Applies Applies. No charge for first 100 pages Applies. No charge for first 100 pages. (vii) Duplication costs—tape, CD ROM or diskette Actual cost Applies Applies Applies.

    (2) Search. (i) Search fees will be charged for all requests other than requests made by educational institutions, noncommercial scientific institutions, or representatives of the news media, subject to the limitations of paragraph (d) of this section. HUD may charge for time spent searching even if HUD does not locate any responsive record or if HUD withholds the record(s) located as entirely exempt from disclosure.

    (ii) For each hour spent by personnel searching for requested records, including electronic searches that do not require new programming, the fees will be $13 per quarter hour for professional personnel and $6 per quarter hour for clerical personnel.

    (iii) Requesters will be charged the direct costs associated with conducting any search that requires the creation of a new program to locate the requested records.

    (iv) For requests requiring the retrieval of records from any Federal records center, certain additional costs may be incurred in accordance with the Transactional Billing Rate Schedule established by the National Archives and Records Administration.

    (3) Duplication. Duplication fees will be charged to all requesters, subject to the limitations of paragraph (d) of this section. For a paper photocopy of a record (no more than one copy of which need be supplied), the fee will be $0.10 per page. For copies in digital format, HUD will charge the direct costs, including operator time, of producing the copy. Where paper documents must be scanned in order to comply with a requester's preference to receive the records in an electronic format, the requester shall pay the direct costs associated with scanning those materials. For other forms of duplication, HUD will charge the direct costs.

    (4) Review. Review fees will be charged to requesters who make a commercial use request. Review fees will be charged only for the initial record review (the review done where HUD determines whether an exemption applies to a particular record or record portion, at the initial request level). No charge will be made for review at the administrative appeal level for an exemption already applied. However, records or portions of records withheld under an exemption that is subsequently determined not to apply may be reviewed again to determine whether any other exemption not previously considered applies. The cost of that review is chargeable where it is made necessary by such a change of circumstances. Fees for the review time will be $13 per quarter hour for professional personnel and $6 per quarter hour for clerical personnel.

    (d) Restrictions on charging fees. (1) No search fee will be charged for requests by educational institutions, noncommercial scientific institutions, or representatives of the news media. In addition, when HUD fails to comply with the applicable time limits in which to respond to a request and no unusual or exceptional circumstance, as those terms are defined by the FOIA, apply to the processing of the request, HUD will not charge search fees, or in the instances of requests from educational institutions, noncommercial scientific institutions, or representatives of the news media, as defined by paragraph (b) of this section, HUD will not charge duplication fees.

    (2) Search and review fees will be charged in quarter-hour increments. HUD will round up a quarter hour when professional and clerical search and review time exceeds a quarter-hour increment.

    (3) Except for requesters seeking records for a commercial use, HUD will provide without charge:

    (i) The first 100 pages of duplication (or the cost equivalent); and

    (ii) The first 2 hours of search (or the cost equivalent).

    (4) No fee will be charged whenever a total fee calculated under paragraph (c) of this section is less than HUD's cost to process the payment. Currently, whenever a total fee calculated is $25 or less, no fee will be charged.

    (e) Notice of anticipated fees in excess of $25. When HUD determines or estimates that the fees to be charged under this section will amount to more than $25, HUD will notify the requester of the actual or estimated amount of the fees, unless the requester has indicated a willingness to pay fees as high as the amount anticipated. If only a portion of the fee can be readily estimated, HUD shall advise the requester that the estimated fee may be only a portion of the total fee. In cases in which a requester has been notified that actual or estimated fees amount to more than $25, the request will be held in abeyance for 15 working days. Further work will not be done on that request until the requester has either made a firm commitment to pay the anticipated total fee, or has made payment in advance if the total fee exceeds $250. Any such agreement should be memorialized by the requester in writing, should indicate a given dollar amount, and should be received by HUD within the time period specified by HUD in its notice to the requester. If the requester does not provide a firm commitment to pay the anticipated fee within the time period specified by HUD, the request will be closed. A notice under this paragraph will offer the requester an opportunity to discuss the matter of fees with HUD personnel in order to reformulate the request to meet the requester's needs at a lower cost. HUD is not required to accept payments in installments.

    (f) Charges for other services. Although not required to provide special services, if HUD chooses to do so as a matter of administrative discretion, HUD will charge the direct costs of providing these services. Examples of such services include certifying that records are true copies, providing multiple copies of the same document, or sending documents by means other than ordinary mail.

    (g) Charging interest. HUD may charge interest on any unpaid bill starting on the 31st day following the date of billing the requester. Interest charges will be assessed at the rate provided in 31 U.S.C. 3717 and will accrue from the date of the billing until payment is received by HUD. HUD will follow the provisions of the Debt Collection Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-365, 96 Stat. 1749), as amended, and its administrative procedures, including the use of consumer reporting agencies, collection agencies, and offset.

    (h) Aggregating requests. If HUD reasonably believes that a requester or a group of requesters acting together is attempting to divide a request into a series of requests for the purpose of avoiding fees, HUD may aggregate those requests and charge accordingly. HUD may presume that multiple requests of this type made within a 30-day period have been made in order to avoid fees. Where requests are separated by a longer period, HUD will aggregate them only where there is a reasonable basis for determining that aggregation is warranted under all the circumstances involved. Multiple requests involving unrelated matters will not be aggregated. Aggregation of requests for fee purposes under this paragraph will be conducted independent of aggregation of requests under § 15.103(d).

    (i) Advance payments. (1) For requests other than those described in paragraphs (i)(2) and (3) of this section, HUD will not require the requester to make an advance payment before work is begun or continued on a request. Payment owed for work already completed, such as prepayment before copies are sent to a requester, is not an advance payment.

    (2) If HUD determines or estimates that a total fee to be charged under this section will be more than $250, it may require the requester to make an advance payment of an amount up to the amount of the entire anticipated fee before beginning to process the request, except where it receives a satisfactory assurance of full payment from a requester who has a history of prompt payment.

    (3) If a requester has previously failed to pay a properly charged FOIA fee to HUD within 30 days of the date of billing, before HUD begins to process a new request or continues to process a pending request from that requester, HUD will require the requester to pay the full amount due, plus any applicable interest, and to make an advance payment of the full amount of any anticipated fee. If HUD has a reasonable basis to believe that a requester has misrepresented his or her identity in order to avoid paying outstanding fees, HUD may require that the requester provide proof of identity.

    (4) When HUD requires advance payment, the request will be held in abeyance for 15 working days to allow the requester an opportunity to make payment in advance and/or modify the scope of the request. If the requester does not pay the advance payment or modify the scope of the request within the allotted time frame, the request will be closed.

    (j) Other statutes specifically providing for fees. The fee schedule in this section does not apply to fees charged under any statute that specifically requires an agency to set and collect fees for particular types of records. Where records responsive to requests are maintained for distribution by agencies operating such statutorily based fee schedule programs, HUD will inform requesters of the contact information for that source.

    (k) Requirements for waiver or reduction of fees. (1) Records responsive to a request will be furnished without charge or at a charge reduced below that established under paragraph (c) of this section if HUD determines, based on all available information, that the requester has demonstrated the following:

    (i) Disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government; and

    (ii) Disclosure of the information is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.

    (2) To determine whether the first fee waiver requirement is met, HUD will consider the following factors:

    (i) The subject of the requested records should concern identifiable operations or activities of the Federal Government, with a connection that is direct and clear, not remote or attenuated.

    (ii) The disclosable portions of the requested records should be meaningfully informative about government operations or activities and “likely to contribute” to an increased public understanding of those operations or activities. The disclosure of information that already is in the public domain, in either a duplicative or a substantially identical form, would not be as likely to contribute to such increased understanding, where nothing new would be added to the public's understanding.

    (iii) The disclosure should contribute to the understanding of a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester. A requester's expertise in the subject area and ability and intention to effectively convey information to the public will be considered. It will be presumed that a representative of the news media will satisfy this consideration.

    (iv) The public's understanding of the subject in question, as compared to the level of public understanding existing prior to the disclosure, should be enhanced by the disclosure to a significant extent. However, HUD will not make value judgments about whether information at issue is “important” enough to be made public.

    (3) To determine whether the second fee waiver requirement is met, HUD will consider the following factors:

    (i) HUD will identify any commercial interest of the requester as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, or of any person on whose behalf the requester may be acting, that would be furthered by the requested disclosure. Requesters shall be given an opportunity in the administrative process to provide explanatory information regarding this consideration.

    (ii) A fee waiver or reduction is justified where the public interest standard is satisfied and that public interest is greater than that of any identified commercial interest in disclosure. HUD ordinarily will presume that where a news media requester has satisfied the public interest standard, the public interest will be the interest primarily served by disclosure to that requester. Disclosure to data brokers or others who merely compile and market government information for direct economic return will not be presumed to primarily serve the public interest.

    (4) Where only some of the records to be released satisfy the requirements for a waiver of fees, a waiver will be granted for those records.

    (5) Requests for the waiver or reduction of fees should address the factors listed in paragraphs (k)(2) and (3) of this section, insofar as they apply to each request. In deciding to grant waivers or reductions of fees, HUD will exercise its discretion to consider the cost effectiveness of its investment of administrative resources.

    § 15.107 Documents generally protected from disclosure.

    The FOIA contains nine exemptions (5 U.S.C. 552(b)) that authorize agencies to withhold various records from disclosure. With regard to certain types of records, HUD generally applies the exemptions as follows:

    (a) Classified documents. Exemption 1 (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1)) protects classified national defense and foreign relations information. HUD seldom relies on this exception to withhold documents. However, where applicable, HUD will refer a request for records classified under Executive Order 13526 and the pertinent records to the originating agency for processing. HUD may refuse to confirm or deny the existence of the requested information if the originating agency determines that the fact of the existence of the information itself is classified.

    (b) Internal agency rules and practices. Exemption 2 (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(2)) protects records relating to internal personnel rules and practices.

    (c) Information prohibited from disclosure by another statute. Exemption 3 (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3)) protects information that is prohibited from disclosure by another Federal law. HUD generally will not disclose competitive proposals prior to contract award, competitive proposals that are not set forth or incorporated by reference into the awarded contract, (see 41 U.S.C. 4702), or, during the selection process, any covered selection information regarding such selection, either directly or indirectly (see 42 U.S.C. 3537a).

    (d) Commercial or financial information. Exemption 4 (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) protects trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person that is privileged and confidential. HUD will handle this type of information as provided by § 15.108.

    (e) Certain interagency or intra-agency communications. Exemption 5 (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5)) protects interagency or intra-agency communications that are protected by legal privileges, such as the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product privilege, or communications reflecting the agency's deliberative process.

    (f) Personal privacy. Exemption 6 (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)) protects information involving matters of personal privacy. This information may include personnel, medical, and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Names, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of persons residing in public or assisted housing or of borrowers in FHA-insured single family mortgage transactions generally will not be disclosed.

    (g) Law enforcement records. Exemption 7 (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)) protects certain records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes. This exemption protects records where the production could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings; for example, the names of individuals who have filed fair housing complaints. The protection of this exemption also encompasses, but is not limited to, information in law enforcement files that could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; the names of confidential informants; and techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations, or guidelines for law enforcement investigations if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.

    (h) Supervision of financial institutions. Exemption 8 (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)) protects information relating to the supervision of financial institutions. For purposes of Exemption 8, HUD is an “agency responsible for the regulation and supervision of financial institutions” for purposes of monitoring fair housing compliance.

    (i) Wells. Exemption 9 (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(9)) protects geological information on wells.

    § 15.108 Business information.

    (a) In general. Business information obtained by HUD from a submitter will be disclosed under the FOIA only under this section. In making final confidentiality determinations under this section, HUD relies to a large extent upon the information furnished by the affected business to substantiate its claim of confidentiality. HUD may be unable to verify the accuracy of much of the information submitted by the affected business. HUD will comply with Executive Order 12600 and follow the procedure in this section by giving notice to the affected business and an opportunity for the business to present evidence of its confidentiality claim. If HUD is sued by a requester under the FOIA for nondisclosure of confidential business information, HUD expects the affected business to cooperate to the fullest extent possible in defending such a decision.

    (b) Designation of business information. A submitter of business information will use good faith efforts to designate, by appropriate markings, either at the time of submission or at a reasonable time thereafter, any portions of its submission that it considers to be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4. These designations will expire 10 years after the date of the submission unless the submitter requests, and provides justification for, a longer designation period.

    (c) Notice to submitters. HUD will provide a submitter with prompt written notice of a FOIA request or administrative appeal that seeks business information, wherever required under paragraph (d) of this section, in order to give the submitter an opportunity to object to disclosure of any specified portion of that information under paragraph (e) of this section. The notice will either describe the business information requested or include copies of the requested records or portions of records containing the information. When notification of a voluminous number of submitters is required, notification may be made by posting or publishing the notice in a place reasonably likely to accomplish notification.

    (d) Where notice is required. Notice will be given to a submitter wherever:

    (1) The information has been designated in good faith by the submitter as information considered protected from disclosure under Exemption 4; or

    (2) HUD has reason to believe that the information may be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4.

    (e) Opportunity to object to disclosure. HUD will allow a submitter a reasonable time to respond to the notice described in paragraph (c) of this section and will specify that time period within the notice. If a submitter has any objection to disclosure, the submitter should submit a detailed written statement specifying the grounds for withholding any portion of the information under any exemption of the FOIA and, in the case of Exemption 4, the submitter should show why the information is a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential. HUD generally will not consider conclusory statements that particular information would be useful to competitors or would impair sales, or other similar statements, sufficient to justify confidential treatment. In the event that a submitter fails to respond to the notice within the time specified, the submitter will be considered to have no objection to the disclosure of the information. Information provided by the submitter that is not received until after the disclosure decision has been made will not be considered by HUD. Information provided by a submitter under this paragraph may itself be subject to disclosure under the FOIA.

    (f) Notice of intent to disclose. HUD will consider a submitter's objections and specific grounds for nondisclosure in deciding whether to disclose business information. Whenever HUD decides to disclose business information over the objection of a submitter, HUD will give the submitter written notice, which will include:

    (1) A statement of the reason(s) why each of the submitter's disclosure objections was not sustained;

    (2) A description of the business information to be disclosed; and

    (3) A specified disclosure date, which shall be a reasonable time subsequent to the notice.

    (g) Exceptions to notice requirements. The notice requirements of paragraphs (c) and (f) of this section will not apply if:

    (1) HUD determines that the information should not be disclosed;

    (2) The information lawfully has been published or has been officially made available to the public; or

    (3) Disclosure of the information is required by statute (other than the FOIA) or by a regulation issued in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12600.

    (h) Notice of a FOIA lawsuit. Whenever a requester files a lawsuit seeking to compel the disclosure of business information, HUD will promptly notify the submitter.

    (i) Corresponding notice to requesters. Whenever HUD provides a submitter with notice and an opportunity to object to disclosure under paragraph (f) of this section, HUD will also notify the requester(s). Whenever a submitter files a lawsuit seeking to prevent the disclosure of business information, HUD will notify the requester(s).

    § 15.109 Appeals.

    (a) In general. A requester may appeal an adverse determination denying a request, in any respect, in writing. The letter of appeal should clearly identify the determination that is being appealed and the assigned tracking number. The appeal letter and envelope should be marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal” for the quickest possible handling. If mailed, the requester's letter of appeal must be postmarked within 30 calendar days of the date of HUD's letter of determination. If the letter of appeal is transmitted electronically or by a means other than the United States Postal Service, it must be received in the appropriate office by the close of business on the 30th calendar day after the date of HUD's letter of determination.

    (b) Time frames—(1) Expedited processing. HUD will decide an appeal of a denial of a request to expedite processing of a FOIA request within 10 working days of receipt of the appeal.

    (2) All other appeals. HUD will make a determination on appeals within 20 working days of receipt, unless unusual circumstances require HUD to extend the time for an additional 10 working days.

    (3) Exceptions. An appeal ordinarily will not be acted upon if the subject of the appeal is simultaneously being litigated in an applicable Federal court.

    (c) Content of appeals. An appeal letter should include the following:

    (1) A copy of the original request;

    (2) A copy of the adverse determination;

    (3) A statement of facts and legal arguments supporting the appeal; and

    (4) Any additional information the appellant wishes to include.

    (d) When appeal is required. Before seeking a court review of HUD's adverse determination, a requester generally must have exhausted their administrative remedies.

    § 15.110 HUD response to appeals.

    (a) In general. (1) The appellate official will conduct a de novo review of the entire record and applicable law when making a decision.

    (2) The decision on the appeal will be made in writing and will be considered the final action of HUD.

    (i) A decision affirming an adverse determination, in whole or in part, will contain a statement of the reason(s) for the affirmation, including any FOIA exemption(s) applied, and will inform the appellant of the FOIA provisions for potential court review of the decision.

    (ii) If the adverse determination is modified on appeal, in whole or in part, a written decision will be sent to the appellant and the FOIA request will be reprocessed in accordance with the appeal decision.

    (iii) Adverse decisions will include the name and contact information of dispute resolution services that offer mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a nonexclusive alternative to litigation.

    (b) Appeal of a denial of record request. Upon appeal of a denial of a record request, the appellate official will issue a decision that either:

    (1) Overturns the adverse determination, in whole or in part, and remands the request to the appropriate office. The requester will be notified of the rationale for the determination in writing. The original office will then reprocess the request in accordance with the appeal determination and respond directly to the requester; or

    (2) Affirms the adverse determination and declines to provide the requested records to the appellant.

    (c) Appeal of a fee determination. Upon appeal of a fee determination, the appellate official will issue a decision that either:

    (1) Waives the fee or charges the fee that the appellant requested;

    (2) Modifies the original fee charged and explains why the modified fee is appropriate; or

    (3) Advises the appellant that the original fee charged was appropriate and gives the reason behind this determination.

    (d) Appeal of a denial of expedited processing. Upon appeal of a denial of an expedited processing request, the appellate official will issue a decision that either:

    (1) Overturns the adverse determination and grants the expedited processing request; or

    (2) Affirms the decision to deny expedited processing.

    Date: August 7, 2015. Nani A. Coloretti, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20226 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0701] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone, James River; Newport News, VA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the navigable waters of the James River, in the vicinity of the James River Reserve Fleet, in support of United States Navy explosives training on the M/V SS DEL MONTE. This safety zone will restrict vessel movement in the specified area during the explosives training. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life and property on the surrounding navigable waters during the United States Navy explosives training.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective and enforced from 8 a.m. on August 17, 2015 until 4 p.m. on August 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0701]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email LCDR Barbara Wilk, Waterways Management Division Chief, Sector Hampton Roads, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 668-5580, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior written notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule due to the fact that this military training is necessary to train and qualify Navy personnel in the use of explosives. This training is imperative to ensure that Navy personnel located within the Fifth Coast Guard District are properly trained and qualified before conducting military and national security operations for use in securing ports and waterways. Navy policy requires that Navy personnel meet and maintain certain qualification standards before being allowed to carry out certain missions. Failure to conduct this required training at this time will result in a lapse in personnel qualification standards and, consequently, the inability of Navy personnel to carry out important national security functions at any time. The Coast Guard received the information about this event on July 20, 2015; delaying the effective date by first publishing an NPRM would be contrary to the safety zone's intended objectives as well as to the public interest because immediate action is needed to protect persons and vessels against the hazards associated. The Coast Guard will provide advance notification to users of the affected waterway via marine information broadcasts and local notice to mariners. The Coast Guard will provide advance notifications to users of the affected waterway via marine information broadcasts and local notice to mariners.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Due to the need for immediate action, the restriction on vessel traffic is necessary to protect life, property and the environment; therefore, a 30-day notice is impracticable. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the safety zone's intended objectives of protecting persons and vessels, and enhancing public and maritime safety.

    B. Basis and Purpose

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

    The purpose of this safety zone is to protect the participants, patrol vessels, and other vessels transiting navigable waters of the James River, in the vicinity of the James River Reserve Fleet, from hazards associated with military explosives operations. The potential hazards to mariners within the safety zone include shock waves, flying shrapnel, and loud noises.

    C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Captain of the Port of Hampton Roads is establishing a safety zone on specified waters of the James River, in the vicinity of the James River Reserve Fleet, in Newport News, VA. The safety zone will encompass all navigable waters within a 1500 foot radius of the SS DEL MONTE location at position 37°06′11″ N., 076°38′40″ W. (NAD 1983). This safety zone will be established and enforced from 8 a.m. on August 17, 2015 until 4 p.m. on August 21, 2015. Access to the safety zone will be restricted during the specified dates and times. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port of his Representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.

    The Captain of the Port will give notice of the enforcement of the safety zone by all appropriate means to provide the widest dissemination of notice to the affected segments of the public. This includes publication in the Local Notice to Mariners and Marine Information Broadcasts.

    D. Regulatory Analyses

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

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. Although this safety zone restricts vessel traffic through the regulated area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) This rule will only be enforced for the limited size and duration of the event; and (ii) the Coast Guard will make extensive notification to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts so mariners may adjust their plans accordingly.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule affects the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in waters of the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River during the enforcement period.

    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) The safety zone is of limited size and duration, and (ii) Sector Hampton Roads will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the James River allowing mariners to adjust their plans accordingly.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

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

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children

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

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    12. Energy Effects

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

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34-(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T05-0701 to read as follows:
    § 165.T05-0701 Safety Zone, James River; Newport News, VA.

    (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, Captain of the Port means the Commander, Sector Hampton Roads. Representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port. Participants mean individuals and vessels involved in explosives training.

    (b) Locations. The following area is a safety zone:

    (1) All waters in the vicinity of the of the James River Reserve Fleet, in the James River, within a 1500 foot radius of the M/V SS DEL MONTE in approximate position 37°06′11″ N., 076°38′40″ W. (NAD 1983).

    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones in § 165.23 of this part.

    (2) With the exception of participants, entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his designated representatives.

    (3) All vessels underway within this safety zone at the time it is implemented are to depart the zone immediately.

    (4) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his representative can be contacted at telephone number (757) 668-5555.

    (5) The Coast Guard and designated James River Reserve Fleet security vessels enforcing the safety zone can be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65 Mhz) and channel 16 (156.8 Mhz).

    (6) This section applies to all persons or vessels wishing to transit through the safety zone except participants and vessels that are engaged in the following operations:

    (i) Enforcing laws;

    (ii) Servicing aids to navigation; and

    (iii) Emergency response vessels.

    (7) The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.

    (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 8 a.m. on August 17, 2015 to 4 p.m. on August 21, 2015.

    Dated: July 31, 2015. Christopher S. Keane, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Hampton Roads.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20115 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0760] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; U.S. Army Exercise, Des Plaines River, Channahon, IL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Des Plaines River between mile marker 277.8 and mile marker 279.2, Channahon, IL. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Des Plaines River from August 18, 2015 to August 19, 2015, with a rain date of August 20, 2015. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect the surrounding public and vessels from the hazards associated with low flying aircraft and bridging operations spanning the width of the river for a U.S. Army exercise.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on August 18, 2015 to 11:59 p.m. on August 20, 2015. This rule will be enforced with actual notice from 6:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. on August 18, 2015 and August 19, 2015, or alternatively if postponed due to inclement weather, from 6:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. on August 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-0760. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, contact or email LT Lindsay Cook, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Chicago, at (630) 986-2155 or [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

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

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    On August 18, 2015 and August 19, 2015, the U.S. Army will conduct a bridging exercise spanning the width of the river. The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, has determined that the low flying aircraft and bridging operations spanning the width of the river associated with this exercise will pose a significant risk to public safety and property. This safety zone is necessary to protect the public from the hazards associated with low flying aircraft and bridging operations.

    C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the public and the participants during a U.S. Army exercise on a portion of the Des Plaines River from mile marker 277.8 to mile marker 279.2. This safety zone will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. on August 18, 2015 and August 19, 2015. If the event is postponed due to inclement weather, the safety zone will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. on August 20, 2015, the allotted rain date. This zone will encompass all waters of the Des Plaines River from mile marker 277.8 to mile marker 279.2.

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

    D. Regulatory Analyses

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

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. during a two day period. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this temporary rule on small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit on a portion of the Des Plaines River from mile marker 277.8 to mile marker 279.2 on August 18, 2015 and August 19, 2015 or on August 20, 2015.

    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited in the Regulatory Planning and Review section. Additionally, before the enforcement of the zone, we will issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Public Notice of Safety Zone so vessel owners and operators can plan accordingly.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

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

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children

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

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    12. Energy Effects

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

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T09-0760 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0760 Safety Zone; U.S. Army Exercise, Des Plaines River, Channahon, IL.

    (a) Location. All waters on the Des Plaines River between the mile marker 277.8 and mile marker 279.2, Channahon, IL.

    (b) Effective and Enforcement Period. This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on August 18, 2015 to 11:59 p.m. on August 20, 2015. This rule will be enforced with actual notice from 6:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. on August 18, 2015 and August 19, 2015, or alternatively if postponed due to weather, from 6:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. on August 20, 2015.

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

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

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

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

    Dated: August 6, 2015. A.B. Cocanour, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20251 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 1 RIN 2900-AO39 Animals on VA Property AGENCY:

    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) amends its regulation concerning the presence of animals on VA property. This final rule expands the current VA regulation to authorize the presence of service animals consistent with applicable Federal law when these animals accompany individuals with disabilities seeking admittance to property owned or operated by VA.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective September 16, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joyce Edmonson, RN, JD, Patient Care Services, (10P4), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (410) 637-4755. (This is not a toll free number.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On November 21, 2014, VA published in the Federal Register (79 FR 69379) a proposed rule to amend VA regulations regarding the presence of animals on VA property. This rule authorizes the access of service animals when these animals accompany individuals with disabilities seeking admittance to VA property in a manner consistent with applicable Federal law, and clarifies the authority of a VA facility head or designee to allow non-service animals to be present on VA property.

    Interested persons were invited to submit comments to the proposed rule on or before January 20, 2015, and VA received 96 comments. All of the issues raised by the commenters that concerned at least one portion of the rule can be grouped together by similar topic, and we have organized our discussion of the comments accordingly. For the reasons set forth in the proposed rule and below, we are adopting the proposed rule as final, with changes, explained below, to proposed 38 CFR 1.218(a)(11).

    Multiple commenters stated that it was unclear to what groups of individuals the proposed rule would apply. One commenter specifically expressed concern as to whether a service animal that assisted a visitor of a veteran would be permitted on VA property. We clarify for these commenters that this VA regulation applies to everyone seeking access to VA property, to include employees, veterans, and visitors. The rule as proposed did not contain any limiting language to restrict applicability to only certain groups of individuals, and we therefore do not make any changes to the final rule based on these comments. Several commenters applauded the development by VA of a uniform regulation for service animal access for all VA property, and did not recommend any changes. VA appreciates these comments and believes that this regulation will allow for more consistent access of VA property by service animals.

    One commenter asserted that VA should use the term “assistance animal” instead of “service animals” throughout the proposed regulation because, they assert, the term “service animals” is understood more narrowly in the service animal industry to refer only to those animals that assist with mobility impairments. We do not make any changes based on these comments. We disagree that the term “assistance animal” is better understood than “service animal” by those in the service animal industry. Additionally, this regulation is written for a broader audience than just those in the service animal industry, to include any member of the public that may have need to access VA property. Indeed, the term “service animal” as defined in the proposed rule is well understood by the general public because it is consistent with the definition of “service animal” in the regulations that implement the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We therefore do not make any changes based on these comments. A commenter also urged that VA use the phrase “guide dog” versus “seeing eye dog.” We do not make any changes based on this comment because, as proposed and in this final rule, “seeing eye dog” is replaced in § 1.218(a)(11) with the term “service animal,” and “service animal” includes those dogs trained for the purpose of assisting individuals with a sensory disability (to include visual impairments). Other commenters further asserted that the definition of “service animal” in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) be changed to refer to a dog that does “work or performs tasks” as opposed to a dog that does “work and performs tasks.” Particularly, commenters noted that VA used both these phrases interchangeably in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(viii), and asserted that this was confusing. We agree with these comments, and clarify that the intent was to use only the phrase “work or performs tasks” throughout the definition of “service animal.” We therefore make changes to ensure that the phrase “work or perform tasks” is used consistently throughout § 1.218(a)(11)(viii).

    One commenter was concerned that breed restrictions may be imposed based on a perception that certain breeds of dogs are prone to violence. This VA regulation does not impose breed restrictions, and VA will not otherwise pose breed restrictions for purposes of access of service animals on VA property. VA will only deny access to VA property or will remove a service animal from VA property based on an individual assessment in accordance with objective criteria of the risks that the individual service animal poses to the health or safety of people or other service animals. VA makes no changes based on this comment.

    Several commenters sought clarification between a “service animal” and a “pet,” and whether animals other than dogs were included in the definition of “service animal.” As proposed, § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) defined a “service animal” as any dog that accompanies an individual with a disability and that is individually trained for that purpose. The definition in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) specifically excluded any species of animal other than a dog, and specifically required that the work or tasks performed by the service animal be directly related to the individual's disability. Further, § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) distinguished that the crime deterrent effects of an animal's presence, or the provision of emotional support or well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute “work or tasks.” The definition as proposed in § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) clearly excluded any animal other than a dog, and also excluded any dog that is not individually trained to assist an individual with a disability. As proposed, § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) makes clear that unless the animal is a dog that is individually trained to do something that qualifies as work or a task, the animal is a pet or other type of animal and does not qualify as a service animal. We believe the definition in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) is clear enough to exclude a “pet,”, and we therefore do not make any changes based on these comments.

    Several commenters wanted VA to permit miniature horses on VA properties. As discussed in the proposed rule, VA believes the presence of a miniature horse poses legitimate safety concerns, both to people on VA property and the miniature horse, especially on VA healthcare properties. This final rule reiterates VA's determination from the proposed rule, that, in light of a review of the multiple assessment factors, miniature horses are excluded from VA properties. We restate from the proposed rule that these assessment factors include the larger size of a miniature horse as well as their reduced predictability in behaving in accordance with typical standards of public access required of service animals. Additional factors from the proposed rule that VA considers to support the exclusion of miniature horses include elimination of horse waste, a heightened flee response of a miniature horse, the smooth flooring common to VA properties, and the likely disruptive attention a horse would receive. We therefore do not make any changes based on these comments.

    Many commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule restricted access to only those dogs trained or certified by Assistance Dogs International (ADI), International Guide Dog Federation (IGDF), or one of their affiliated organizations. The proposed rule did not create such restrictions; as proposed, VA's standard for service animal access is consistent with regulations that implement the ADA and is not dependent on how the service animal was trained or by whom, but instead depends on the service animal's ability to behave in accordance with typical public access standards for public settings. Therefore, we do not make any changes based on these comments. VA notes that a service animal must be certified by ADI or IGDF as a requirement for veterans seeking service dog benefits under 38 CFR 17.148, however, those requirements for benefits do not apply to access. Conversely, several commenters asserted that service animal access to VA properties should be restricted to only those animals that are certified or trained by ADI, IGDF, or an affiliate—these commenters articulated various negative experiences where a “fake service animal” threatened their person, their service animal, or another person while on VA property or other property. VA recognizes that these commenters have legitimate concerns related to dogs that are not appropriately trained possibly being able to access VA property under the guise of a “service dog,” because VA will not be requiring any proof of training or certification for purposes of access. However, the lack of such a documentation requirement is consistent with regulations that implement the ADA, and otherwise provides the benefit of the doubt to individuals with disabilities unless the service animal's behavior necessitates that access be denied or the service animal be removed. VA does not make any changes based on these comments, but we stress that § 1.218(a)(11)(ii) still provides for removal of a service animal from certain areas on VA property if the animal exhibits behavior or other signs that it is a threat to the health or safety of individuals or other service animals on VA property.

    Several commenters objected to the requirements in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(vii) to provide proof of a service animal's good health when an individual will be accompanied by a service animal while receiving treatment in a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) residential program. Some of these commenters alluded to an administrative burden of “registering” a service animal to obtain access to the VA property. We clarify for these commenters that § 1.218(a)(11)(vii) only applies to situations where an individual would be accompanied by a service animal for the duration of his or her treatment in a VHA residential program—these documentation requirements would not apply for more general access to a VA property, such as to receive outpatient care provided by VA. The presentation of certain records as proof of an animal's health required in § 1.218(a)(11)(vii) is necessary when a service animal will have routine and constant interaction with employees, veterans, patients, and visitors over the course of an extended period of time in a residential setting, so that VA may ensure patient care, patient safety, and infection control standards are met. However, we do agree with the commenters who noted that some of the requirements in § 1.218(a)(11)(vii) as proposed could create an undue administrative burden on both individuals receiving treatment as well as VA staff. We therefore make changes in the final rule to remove § 1.218(a)(11)(vii)(A)-(C), and to revise § 1.218(a)(11)(vii) to require that the individual receiving treatment in a residential program must only provide documentation that confirms that the service animal has a current rabies vaccine and current core canine vaccines. We further revise the conditions in § 1.218(a)(11)(vii) related to when a rabies vaccine and core canine vaccines are considered “current” to require “a current rabies vaccine as determined by state and local public health requirements, and current core canine vaccines as dictated by local veterinary practice standards (e.g. distemper, parvovirus, and adenovirus-2).” These changes will retain the requirement for documentation of basic canine vaccinations that we believe is necessary to ensure the service animal is in good health, while providing more flexibility of those required vaccinations in accordance with local requirements. These revisions will also remove the requirement for proof of a comprehensive exam within the past 12 months, as well as remove the requirement that an individual must otherwise confirm in writing that the service animal is healthy. We believe that the revised documentation requirements in § 1.218(a)(11)(vii) now relate only to the basic canine vaccines that an the individual would have merely as a function of being a responsible dog owner, and therefore providing such documentation to VA for confirmation is not burdensome. We make similar changes to the documentation requirements related to the health of non-service animals in § 1.218(a)(11)(ix)(C)-(E), specifically to clarify that the prophylactic medication requirement for non-service animals applies only to parasite control medications (e.g. monthly flea and tick prevention), and to clarify that the health requirements for non-service animals are consistent with local veterinary practice standards.

    One commenter suggested that the mere presence of a flea or tick on a service animal should not be grounds for removal of a service animal under § 1.218(a)(11)(ii)(C)(2), particularly for individuals being treated in VA residential settings. VA does not make any changes based on this comment. We reiterate from the proposed rule that the presence of a flea or tick poses a threat to the health and safety of others, as fleas, ticks, and other parasites can be spread by physical contact and close proximity and can reproduce quickly and in great volume to create infestation conditions that are much more difficult to remediate, versus removing a service animal with visible external parasites. We note, however, that under § 1.218(a)(11)(ii)(C), VA staff must complete an individualized assessment based on objective indications, such as external signs of parasites, to ascertain the severity of risk to the health or safety of people or other service animals.

    Several commenters suggested that VA revise § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) to permit service dogs in training to access VA property. Some of these commenters reasoned that a service dog in training could be well trained enough to dependably behave safely in public settings, even without having fully completed their training. Other commenters expressed that VA properties could be used as training opportunities for service animals. VA seeks to maintain a safe and therapeutic environment at its properties. In a complex hospital environment, we believe that service animals should be fully trained and a “service animal in training” is not fully trained. We therefore do not revise § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) to permit service animals in training.

    Several commenters inquired as to how VA's service animal access rule would be enforced, particularly with regard to staff training. Some commenters expressed concerns about “fake service animals” interfering with the need for people and service animals to safely access VA properties. Others expressed concerns that VA's proposed rule would establish a barrier to access or expressed concern regarding the authority of varying facility directors to devise implementation criteria that would restrict access outside of the proposed rule. VA does not make any changes based on these comments. The final rule establishes a set of standardized criteria that can be uniformly enforced on VA property, and removes variation amongst individual facilities that existed prior to this final rule. A service animal meeting VA's requirements under this final rule will not be subject to any barrier to access. And once on VA property, service animals are subject to the same terms, conditions and regulations that govern the admission of the public to VA property, to include certain exceptions on VHA properties to ensure patient care, patient safety, and infection control standards are not compromised. Therefore, service animals would only be denied access or removed if, based on an individualized assessment that is subject to objective indications in the final rule to ascertain severity of risk, there is cause for access denial or removal. VA anticipates that in most cases concerns related to access and removal will be communicated by veterans, employees, or visitors to VA staff members (including security and law enforcement) who will manage any concerns and facilitate an appropriate response. VA anticipates all appropriate staff members will be trained on what is and what is not allowed under this regulation and how it should be implemented.

    Several commenters expressed concern about the requirement in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(i) that the service animal be in a guiding harness or on a leash, as well as under the control of the individual with a disability, at all times while on VA property. These commenters asserted that multiple disabilities might prevent an individual from physically controlling a service animal via a harness or leash, or that the service animal's presence on a leash or other tether at all times might prevent that service animal from completing work or tasks they are trained to perform. Further, some commenters urged VA to adopt a standard that mimics that of the regulations that implement the ADA, whereby control over the service animal by the handler can be in the form of voice control. VA agrees with these comments, and amends § 1.218(a)(11)(i) to incorporate comparable language to that used in the regulations that implement the ADA. Cf. 28 CFR 36.302(c)(4).

    Likewise, after considering related comments, VA recognizes that individuals with disabilities may require the assistance of an alternate handler to control the service animal while on VA property. The need for an alternate handler may arise when the individual with the disability is unable to control the service animal because of the care the individual receives; or when the service animal, individual with a disability, and the alternate handler routinely operate as part of a team when accessing public areas. For this reason, VA amends § 1.218(a)(11)(i) and (a)(11)(ii)(A) to allow for an alternate handler to also be in control of the service animal. Specifically, § 1.218(a)(11)(i) will state that a service animal shall be under the control of the person with the disability or an alternate handler at all times while on VA property. Section 1.218(a)(11)(i) will also state that a service animal shall have a harness, leash, or other tether, unless either the handler is unable because of a disability to use a harness, leash, or other tether, or the use of a harness, leash, or other tether would interfere with the service animal's safe, effective performance of work or tasks, in which case the service animal must be otherwise under the handler's control (e.g., voice control, signals, or other effective means). We reiterate, that at no time is any VA employee to be responsible for the control of the service animal, as set forth in § 1.218(a)(11)(i).

    Several commenters inquired into whose responsibility is it to clean up animal waste and if VA properties have to designate an area for animals to relieve themselves. Commensurate with the requirements for access is a properly housebroken service animal. Should a service animal relieve bowel or bladder on VA property, it is the responsibility of the handler or the alternate handler to properly dispose of the waste in accordance with standards appropriate for public settings. VA again notes that at no time is any employee to be responsible to control a service animal and part of the access requirements is that an animal is housebroken. VA makes no change based on this comment.

    Several commenters objected to the absolute prohibition of service animal access to certain areas of VHA property in proposed 1.218(a)(11)(iii), citing contrary standards that permit such access in regulations that implement the ADA as well as guidance issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Particularly, commenters objected to the categorical exclusion of service animals from inpatient hospital settings to include locked mental health units (in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(C)), and from patient rooms or treatment areas where patients may have an animal allergy or phobia (in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(E)). VA cited three examples of acute inpatient hospital settings in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(C) (intensive care units, stabilization units, and locked mental health units) in a representative but not exhaustive list of areas that could be covered by this exclusion. In light of the comments received, VA revises § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(C) to remove these examples, and instead qualify the exclusion of service animals in acute inpatient settings to exclude such animals when their presence is not part of a documented treatment plan. VA agrees with the commenters that there are scenarios in which a service animal on any of the specific areas in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(C) may provide its services when the individual being treated or an alternate handler can control a service animal as part of a treatment plan established by the clinical care team. Although VA used CDC guidance to justify the area-based exclusions in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(C) (see 79 FR 69379, 69381), VA believes that this revision is still consistent with CDC's guidance because the service animal would not be permitted to access the inpatient area if not part of a documented treatment plan. The animal would require a staff assessment under § 1.218(a)(11)(ii)(C) to evaluate any threat to the health or safety of patients or staff. A service animal could still be removed under § 1.218(a)(11)(ii) if it presented a risk to patient safety or infection control standards after gaining access to an acute inpatient setting. For these same reasons, VA removes proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(E), the prohibition of the presence of service animals in patient rooms or areas where a patient may have an animal allergy or phobia. Again, a service animal could be removed from such an area if the animal posed a risk to patient safety or health, under § 1.218(a)(11)(ii). By removing proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(E), we will renumber proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(F) and (iii)(G) as (iii)(E) and (iii)(F), respectively.

    However, VA will not remove all categorical area-based exclusions of service animals on VHA property from proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii). VA's healthcare facilities reflect evidence based standards governing safe operation of a healthcare facility, patient care, and infection control. Consistent with CDC guidance, VA still finds certain locations such as operating rooms, surgical suites, areas where invasive procedures are being performed, decontamination, sterile processing, sterile storage areas, food preparation areas (not to include public food service areas), and any areas where protective barrier measures are required, to be inappropriate environments for a service animal. One commenter recommended removing the representative examples in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(A)-(C) as redundant of places where protective barrier measures are required. We decline to remove these examples because they add clarity regarding the types of areas where access must be restricted to ensure patient care, patient safety or infection control standards are not compromised. While we will retain these area-based exclusions and the examples provided in the final rule, in response to comments we will revise § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(F) as proposed, renumbered as § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(E), to include the clarifying parenthetical “(not to include public food service areas).” We will also revise § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(G) as proposed, renumbered as § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(F), to refer to areas “where personal protective clothing must be worn or barrier protective measures must be taken to enter,” instead of referring to areas that require “personal protective equipment” to be worn. We agree with commenters that “personal protective equipment” in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(G) could be interpreted to encompass even the wearing of basic equipment by patients, staff, or visitors like paper face masks or examination gloves, which could qualify nearly any area of a VHA medical facility as categorically excluding the presence of a service animal. The revisions to proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(G) (§ 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(F) as renumbered) more accurately describe the types of areas that a service animal will be restricted from entering.

    We emphasize that even with these changes to the area-based exclusions in § 1.218(a)(11)(iii), a specific service animal may still be individually denied access or removed if it does not meet the standards in § 1.218(a)(11)(i) and (a)(11)(ii), namely that the animal must be controlled (by the individual or an alternate handler that is not a VA employee), be housebroken, and not pose a threat to the health and safety of people or other service animals.

    Several commenters expressed concerns regarding the provision of service dogs, service dog training, and service dog benefits by VA. Particularly, some commenters asserted that VA should assist veterans to obtain a service dog and have such a dog trained and certified. These comments are beyond the scope of this rule, and we therefore do not make any changes. We note, however, that the provision of service dog benefits by VA is regulated at 38 CFR 17.148. Other commenters noted the benefits of service animals for the treatment of PTSD, but did not necessarily suggest any changes to the proposed rule. Again, these comments are beyond the scope of this rule, and we therefore do not make any changes. Some commenters requested that the final rule provide examples of what VA considers to be “work” or “tasks” that a service animal may be trained to perform, either in the preamble or through revisions to the regulation text. Commenters noted that such examples would be particularly helpful for a service animal that might assist an individual with a mental disability or illness. We decline to make revisions to the regulation text or provide examples in the preamble of this final rule. However, we do provide as reference here the supplemental guidance issued by the Department of Justice when it last issued regulations on this subject in 2010, specifically on what constitutes “work or tasks” that a service animal may provide (see Appendix A to 28 CFR part 36, Guidance on Revisions to ADA Regulation on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities, 75 FR 56236, 56258). This reference provides examples of work or tasks that VA understands to be performed by service animals for individuals with disabilities so that such individuals may better navigate public spaces. By providing this reference of examples of work and tasks in the context of public access, VA is not expressing a position on the efficacy of such dogs for the treatment of the disabilities of the individuals.

    One commenter urged VA to include emotional support animals in the definition of “service animal” in § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) as proposed. The commenter asserted that because many veterans with PTSD use emotional support animals in their homes, that refusing access to emotional support animals on VA property could discourage use of VA services by such veterans. This same commenter also made a reference to Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations and guidance that create exclusions for public housing's “no pet” policies for certain animals, to include permitting access for emotional support animals in applicable circumstances, and suggested that VA consider developing a similar rule regarding emotional support animal access on VA property. Another commenter suggested adopting HUD's approach in the context of VA's residential treatment programs. VA does not disagree that some veterans may use emotional support animals, nor disagree with the commenters' subjective accounts that such animals have improved the quality of their lives. However, the HUD regulations and guidance referenced by the commenters appropriately apply in the context of public housing. In particular, the HUD regulations and guidance do not require an animal to be individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability. However, there is a distinction between the presence of an animal in public areas and the functions that animal performs to enable an individual to use public services and public accommodations (service animal), as compared to the presence and use of a comfort or emotional support animal in the home (emotional support animal). Regarding VHA's residential treatment programs, these programs involve shared spaces amongst multiple veterans, where there is an active treatment component that involves the participation of not only the veterans but also treatment providers as well as other members of the public at times. Therefore, we interpret VHA residential programs to be public treatment spaces (just as the other areas of VHA property that are specified in this final rule), rather than a residential space analogous to the HUD public housing context. We therefore do not make any changes based on these comments.

    Commenters expressed concern about the area-based restrictions for property under the control of the National Cemetery Administration (NCA) in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iv). We interpret such comments to be the result of a misunderstanding by commenters that new restrictions were being created in the proposed rule when in fact the proposed area-based restrictions reflect existing restrictions on NCA property in accordance with rules requiring access on the same terms, conditions, and regulations that generally govern admission of the public to the property. That is, the proposed and final rules only clarify that where an individual may not access NCA property (i.e., in NCA construction or maintenance sites, or in NCA open interment areas), so, too, a service animal may not access such property. This rule does not affect the right of an individual to be accompanied by their service animal on NCA grounds in those areas where the general public is permitted. However, these comments raise the possibility that the provision regarding restriction of access to open interment areas may be perceived as overly restrictive. We have, therefore, made a change to § 1.218(a)(11)(iv)(A) to remove the reference to columbaria (as columbaria pose minimal safety issues), and to indicate that individuals may be permitted to observe an individual interment or inurnment accompanied by a service animal. This change will allow family or representatives (such as clergy), accompanied by their service animals, to observe an interment or inurnment when requested and when such observation can be safely accommodated.

    VA makes one technical correction in § 1.218(a)(11)(viii). In the last sentence, VA is replacing “of this chapter” with a complete citation “38 CFR 17.148.” VA also makes several minor, non-substantive edits for clarity such as removing the first commas appearing in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(ix)(C) and (D), replacing the word “on” with the word “in” three places in § 1.218(a)(11)(ix)(E) in reference to VA Community Living Centers, and adding the clarifying phrase “with respect to an individual” to the definition of a disability in § 1.218(a)(11)(x).

    One commenter asked for clarification if animals other than dogs can participate in Animal Assisted Activities (AAA) or Animal Assisted Therapy (AAT) programs under § 1.218(a)(11)(ix)(C) and (ix)(D) as proposed. Unlike service animals under the proposed and final rules, there is no species restriction for AAA or AAT animals, and AAA or AAT animals are permitted on VHA property only at the discretion of the VA facility head or designee. Should an AAA or AAT animal that is not a dog meet the requirements in § 1.218(a)(11)(ix)(C) and (D), a VA facility head or designee may grant that animal access to VA property. Another commenter suggested that VA allow for pets to visit patients in unique circumstances such as end-of-life situations. As with other species of animals, there is no categorical restriction for AAA or AAT animals that would necessarily exclude a personal pet in an end-of-life or other special circumstance. Should an animal serve an AAA or AAT purpose and meet the requirements in § 1.218(a)(11)(ix)(C) and (D), a VA facility head or designee may grant that animal access to VA property. In addition, a commenter suggested that AAA and AAT animals be allowed on VA property only when their handler or organization has liability insurance. We do not disagree that liability insurance would be a sensible requirement, particularly as AAA is often conducted in group settings. However, VA believes that any liability insurance would be better addressed outside of a regulatory requirement by the VA facility head or designee and the AAA or AAT handler or organization prior to establishing a particular program at a facility. VA makes no changes based on these comments.

    For all of the reasons noted above, VA is adopting the rule as final with changes as noted to 38 CFR 1.218.

    Effect of Rulemaking

    Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this rulemaking, represents VA's implementation of its legal authority on this subject. Other than future amendments to this regulation or governing statutes, no contrary guidance or procedures are authorized. All existing or subsequent VA guidance must be read to conform with this rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance is superseded by this rulemaking.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule includes a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) that requires approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Accordingly, under 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), VA has submitted a copy of this rulemaking action to OMB for review.

    OMB assigns a control number for each collection of information it approves. VA 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. Section 1.218(a)(11) contains a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB has approved the information collection requirement in this section as an emergency clearance under control number 2900-0831. This emergency clearance expires on December 31, 2015, before which time VA will submit to OMB a request for permanent clearance.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule directly affects only individuals and will not directly affect small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 604.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by OMB, unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”

    The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this final rule have been examined and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of this rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for “VA Regulations Published From FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date.”

    Unfunded Mandates

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.007, Blind Rehabilitation Centers; 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; and 64.011, Veterans Dental Care.

    Signing Authority

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Nabors II, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on June 5, 2015, for publication.

    List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure, Cemeteries, Government property, Security measures.

    Dated: June 19, 2015. Michael Shores, Chief Impact Analyst, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 1 as follows:

    PART 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    38 U.S.C. 501(a), and as noted in specific sections.

    2. Revise § 1.218(a)(11) to read as follows:
    § 1.218. Security and law enforcement at VA facilities.

    (a) * * *

    (11) Animals. (i) Service animals, as defined in paragraph (a)(11)(viii) of this section, are permitted on VA property when those animals accompany individuals with disabilities and are trained for that purpose. A service animal shall be under the control of the person with the disability or an alternate handler at all times while on VA property. A service animal shall have a harness, leash, or other tether, unless either the handler is unable because of a disability to use a harness, leash, or other tether, or the use of a harness, leash, or other tether would interfere with the service animal's safe, effective performance of work or tasks, in which case the service animal must be otherwise under the handler's control (e.g., voice control, signals, or other effective means). VA is not responsible for the care or supervision of a service animal. Service animal presence on VA property is subject to the same terms, conditions, and regulations as generally govern admission of the public to the property.

    (ii) A service animal will be denied access to VA property or removed from VA property if:

    (A) The animal is not under the control of the individual with a disability or an alternate handler;

    (B) The animal is not housebroken. The animal must be trained to eliminate its waste in an outdoor area; or

    (C) The animal otherwise poses a risk to the health or safety of people or other service animals. In determining whether an animal poses a risk to the health or safety of people or other service animals, VA will make an individualized assessment based on objective indications to ascertain the severity of the risk. Such indications include but are not limited to:

    (1) External signs of aggression from the service animal, such as growling, biting or snapping, baring its teeth, lunging; or

    (2) External signs of parasites on the service animal (e.g. fleas, ticks), or other external signs of disease or bad health (e.g. diarrhea or vomiting).

    (iii) Service animals will be restricted from accessing certain areas of VA property under the control of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA properties) to ensure patient care, patient safety, or infection control standards are not compromised. Such areas include but are not limited to:

    (A) Operating rooms and surgical suites;

    (B) Areas where invasive procedures are being performed;

    (C) Acute inpatient hospital settings when the presence of the service animal is not part of a documented treatment plan;

    (D) Decontamination, sterile processing, and sterile storage areas;

    (E) Food preparation areas (not to include public food service areas); and

    (F) Any areas where personal protective clothing must be worn or barrier protective measures must be taken to enter.

    (iv) Service animals will be restricted from accessing certain areas of VA property under the control of the National Cemetery Administration (NCA properties) to ensure that public safety, facilities and grounds care, and maintenance control are not compromised. Such areas include but are not limited to:

    (A) Open interment areas, except as approved to observe an individual interment or inurnment.

    (B) Construction or maintenance sites; and

    (C) Grounds keeping and storage facilities.

    (v) If a service animal is denied access to VA property or removed from VA property in accordance with (a)(11)(ii) of this section, or restricted from accessing certain VA property in accordance with paragraphs (a)(11)(iii) and (iv) of this section, then VA will give the individual with a disability the opportunity to obtain services without having the service animal on VA property.

    (vi) Unless paragraph (a)(11)(vii) of this section applies, an individual with a disability must not be required to provide documentation, such as proof that an animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal, to gain access to VA property accompanied by the service animal. However, an individual may be asked if the animal is required because of a disability, and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform.

    (vii) An individual with a disability, if such individual will be accompanied by the service animal while receiving treatment in a VHA residential program, must provide VA with documentation that confirms the service animal has had a current rabies vaccine as determined by state and local public health requirements, and current core canine vaccines as dictated by local veterinary practice standards (e.g. distemper, parvovirus, and adenovirus-2).

    (viii) A service animal means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the individual's disability. The crime deterrent effects of an animal's presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition. Service dogs in training are not considered service animals. This definition applies regardless of whether VA is providing benefits to support a service dog under 38 CFR 17.148.

    (ix) Generally, animals other than service animals (“non-service animals”) are not permitted to be present on VA property, and any individual with a non-service animal must remove it. However, a VA facility head or designee may permit certain non-service animals to be present on VA property for the following reasons:

    (A) Animals may be permitted to be present on VA property for law enforcement purposes;

    (B) Animals under the control of the VA Office of Research and Development may be permitted to be present on VA property;

    (C) Animal-assisted therapy (AAT) animals may be permitted to be present on VHA property when the presence of such animals would not compromise patient care, patient safety, or infection control standards. AAT is a goal-directed clinical intervention, as provided or facilitated by a VA therapist or VA clinician, that incorporates the use of an animal into the treatment regimen of a patient. Any AAT animal present on VHA property must facilitate achievement of patient-specific treatment goals, as documented in the patient's treatment plan. AAT animals must be up to date with all core vaccinations or immunizations, prophylactic parasite control medications, and regular health screenings as determined necessary by a licensed veterinarian consistent with local veterinary practice standards. Proof of compliance with these requirements must be documented and accessible in the area(s) where patients receive AAT.

    (D) Animal-assisted activity (AAA) animals may be permitted to be present on VHA property when the presence of such animals would not compromise patient care, patient safety, or infection control standards. AAA involves animals in activities to provide patients with casual opportunities for motivational, educational, recreational, and/or therapeutic benefits. AAA is not a goal-directed clinical intervention that must be provided or facilitated by a VA therapist or clinician, and therefore is not necessarily incorporated into the treatment regimen of a patient or documented in the patient's medical record as treatment. AAA animals must be up to date with all core vaccinations or immunizations, prophylactic parasite control medications, and regular health screenings as determined necessary by a licensed veterinarian consistent with local veterinary practice standards. Proof of compliance with these requirements must be documented and accessible in the area(s) where patients may participate in AAA.

    (E) Animals participating in a VA Community Living Center (CLC) residential animal program or a Mental Health Residential Rehabilitation Treatment Program (MHRRTP) may be permitted to be present on VHA property, when the presence of such animals would not compromise patient care, patient safety, or infection control standards. A residential animal program in a VA CLC or a MHRRTP is a program that uses the presence of animals to create a more homelike environment to foster comfort for veterans, while also stimulating a sense of purpose, familiarity, and belonging. Any VA CLC or MHRRTP residential animal present on VHA property must facilitate achievement of therapeutic outcomes (such as described above), as documented in patient treatment plans. Residential animals in a VA CLC or MHRRTP must be up to date with all core vaccinations and immunizations, prophylactic parasite control medications, and regular health screenings as determined necessary by a licensed veterinarian consistent with local veterinary practice standards. Proof of compliance with these requirements must be documented and accessible in the VA CLC or MHRRTP.

    (F) Animals may be present on NCA property for ceremonial purposes during committal services, interments, and other memorials, if the presence of such animals would not compromise public safety, facilities and grounds care, and maintenance control standards.

    (x) For purposes of this section, a disability means, with respect to an individual, a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of the individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment.

    (OMB has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number XXXX-XXXX.)

    (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 901, 40 U.S.C. 3103)
    [FR Doc. 2015-20182 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 80 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0208; FRL-9931-94-OAR] RIN 2060-AS64 Approval of North Carolina's Request To Relax the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure Gasoline Volatility Standard for Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a request from the state of North Carolina for the EPA to relax the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standard applicable to gasoline introduced into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year for Mecklenburg and Gaston counties. Specifically, the EPA is approving amendments to the regulations to allow the RVP standard for the two counties to rise from 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) to 9.0 psi for gasoline. The EPA has determined that this change to the federal RVP regulation is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This action is being taken without prior proposal because the EPA believes that this rulemaking is noncontroversial for the reasons set forth in this preamble, and due to the limited scope of this action.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on October 16, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 16, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0208, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patty Klavon, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4476; fax number: (734) 214-4052; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The contents of this preamble are listed in the following outline:

    I. General Information II. Action Being Taken III. History of the Gasoline Volatility Requirement IV. The EPA's Policy Regarding Relaxation of Gasoline Volatility Standards in Ozone Nonattainment Areas That Are Redesignated as Attainment Areas V. North Carolina's Request to Relax the Federal Gasoline RVP Requirement for Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties VI. Final Action VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews VIII. Legal Authority and Statutory Provisions I. General Information A. Why is the EPA issuing a direct final rule?

    The EPA is making this revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the EPA views this revision as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comment. The rationale for this rulemaking is described in detail below. In the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve this revision to the RVP gasoline standard that applies in Mecklenburg and Gaston counties should adverse comments be filed. If the EPA receives no adverse comment, the EPA will not take further action on the proposed rule. If the EPA receives adverse comment on this rule or any portion of this rule, the EPA will withdraw the direct final rule or the portion of the rule that received adverse comment. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rulemaking. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

    B. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this rule are fuel producers and distributors who do business in North Carolina.

    Examples of potentially
  • regulated entities
  • NAICS 1 codes
    Petroleum refineries 324110 Gasoline Marketers and Distributors 424710
  • 424720
  • Gasoline Retail Stations 447110 Gasoline Transporters 484220
  • 484230
  • The above table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. The table lists the types of entities of which the EPA is aware that potentially could be affected by this rule. Other types of entities not listed on the table could also be affected by this rule. To determine whether your organization could be affected by this rule, you should carefully examine the regulations in 40 CFR 80.27. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

    1 North American Industry Classification System.

    C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments? 1. Submitting CBI

    Do not submit CBI to the EPA through 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 disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    When submitting comments, remember to:

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

    • Follow directions—The EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section 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, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

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

    3. Docket Copying Costs

    You may be required to pay a reasonable fee for copying docket materials.

    II. Action Being Taken

    This direct final rule approves a request from the state of North Carolina to change the summertime gasoline RVP standard for Mecklenburg and Gaston counties from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi by amending the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). In a previous rulemaking, the EPA approved a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, North Carolina 2008 ozone area (“the Charlotte area”) and a CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration that relaxing the federal RVP gasoline requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold from June 1 to September 15 of each year in Mecklenburg and Gaston counties would not interfere with maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the Charlotte area. Mecklenburg and Gaston counties are part of the Charlotte area. For more information on North Carolina's redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Charlotte area, please refer to Docket ID. No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0275 for the rulemaking that was signed on July 17, 2015. The preamble for this rulemaking is organized as follows: Section III. provides the history of the federal gasoline volatility regulation. Section IV. describes the policy regarding relaxation of volatility standards in ozone nonattainment areas that are redesignated as attainment areas. Section V. provides information specific to North Carolina's request for Mecklenburg and Gaston counties. Finally, Section VI. presents the final action in response to North Carolina's request.

    III. History of the Gasoline Volatility Requirement

    On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), the EPA determined that gasoline nationwide was becoming increasingly volatile, causing an increase in evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment. Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOC), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to ground-level ozone can reduce lung function, thereby aggravating asthma and other respiratory conditions, increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.

    The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under CAA section 211(c), the EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868) that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the regulatory control periods that were established on a state-by-state basis in the final rule. The regulatory control periods addressed the portion of the year when peak ozone concentrations were expected. These regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of gasoline during the high ozone season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), the EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the volatility control program. These requirements established maximum gasoline RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the state, the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.)

    The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section 211(h) to address fuel volatility. CAA section 211(h) requires the EPA to promulgate regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone season. CAA section 211(h) also prohibits the EPA from establishing a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that the EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.

    On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), the EPA modified the Phase II volatility regulations to be consistent with CAA section 211(h). The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, effective January 13, 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), which included the 7.8 psi ozone season limitation for certain areas. As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility controls and reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility standards published in 1991, the EPA will rely on states to initiate changes to their respective volatility programs. The EPA's policy for approving such changes is described below in Section IV. of this action.

    The state of North Carolina has initiated this change by requesting that the EPA relax the 7.8 psi gasoline RVP standard to 9.0 psi for Mecklenburg and Gaston counties, which are subject to the 7.8 gasoline RVP requirement during the summertime ozone season. Accordingly, the state of North Carolina provided a technical demonstration showing that relaxing the federal gasoline RVP requirements in the two counties from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi would not interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in the Charlotte area or with any other applicable CAA requirement.

    IV. The EPA's Policy Regarding Relaxation of Gasoline Volatility Standards in Ozone Nonattainment Areas That Are Redesignated as Attainment Areas

    As stated in the preamble for the EPA's amended Phase II volatility standards (56 FR 64706), any change in the volatility standard for a nonattainment area that was subsequently redesignated as an attainment area must be accomplished through a separate rulemaking that revises the applicable standard for that area. Thus, for former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas where the EPA mandated a Phase II volatility standard of 7.8 psi RVP in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, the federal 7.8 psi RVP gasoline requirement remains in effect, even after such an area is redesignated to attainment, until a separate rulemaking is completed that relaxes the federal RVP gasoline standard in that area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.

    As explained in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, the EPA believes that relaxation of an applicable gasoline RVP standard is best accomplished in conjunction with the redesignation process. In order for an ozone nonattainment area to be redesignated as an attainment area, CAA section 107(d)(3) requires the state to make a showing, pursuant to CAA section 175A, that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for the ozone NAAQS for ten years. Depending on the area's circumstances, this maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for ten years without the more stringent gasoline volatility standard or that the more stringent gasoline volatility standard may be necessary for the area to maintain its attainment with the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request for redesignation, the EPA will not relax the gasoline volatility standard unless the state requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates to the satisfaction of the EPA that the area will maintain attainment for ten years without the need for the more stringent volatility standard.

    North Carolina requested relaxation of the federal RVP gasoline standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for Mecklenburg and Gaston counties concurrent with its request that the EPA approve a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Charlotte area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    V. North Carolina's Request To Relax the Federal Gasoline RVP Requirement for Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties

    On March 11, 2015, the state of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), submitted a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Charlotte area, which was classified as Marginal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Mecklenburg and Gaston counties are part of the Charlotte area. Additionally, the state submitted a CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration that removal of the federal RVP requirement of 7.8 psi for gasoline during the summertime ozone season in Mecklenburg and Gaston counties would not interfere with maintenance of any NAAQS, including the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Specifically, the state provided a technical demonstration showing that relaxing the federal gasoline RVP requirement in the two counties from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi would not interfere with maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in the Charlotte area or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

    In a rulemaking that was signed on July 17, 2015, the EPA evaluated and approved North Carolina's March 11, 2015 redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Charlotte area. See Docket ID. No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0275. In a separate rulemaking signed on July 17, 2015, the EPA approved North Carolina's non-interference demonstration for Mecklenburg and Gaston counties. See Docket ID. No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0260.2

    2 On March 11, 2015, the NCDENR requested that the EPA parallel process the approval of the submission.

    Both rulemakings were subject to public notice-and-comment. The EPA received two comments on the redesignation request and maintenance plan rulemaking, and those comments were addressed in the final rule for that rulemaking. The comments received can be found in the docket for that rulemaking (Docket ID. No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0275). No comments were received on the non-interference demonstration for Mecklenburg and Gaston counties (Docket ID. No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0260).

    In this action, the EPA is taking the second and final step in the process to approve North Carolina's request to relax the summertime ozone season gasoline RVP standard for Mecklenburg and Gaston counties from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. Specifically, the EPA is amending the applicable gasoline RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi provided at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2) for the two counties. This action to approve North Carolina's request to relax the summertime ozone season RVP standard for Mecklenburg and Gaston counties from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi is based on the EPA's previous approval of North Carolina's March 11, 2015 redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Charlotte area, as well as the non-interference demonstration. This approval is also based on the fact that the Charlotte area is currently in attainment for both the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    VI. Final Action

    The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the request from North Carolina for the EPA to relax the RVP applicable to gasoline introduced into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year in Mecklenburg and Gaston counties. Specifically, this action amends the applicable gasoline RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi provided at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2) for Mecklenburg and Gaston counties.

    The EPA is making this revision without prior proposal because the EPA views the revision as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve this revision to the gasoline RVP standard that applies in Mecklenburg and Gaston counties should adverse comments be filed. This rule will become effective October 16, 2015 without further notice unless the EPA receives adverse comments by September 16, 2015.

    If the EPA receives adverse comments on the rule or any portion of the rule, the EPA will withdraw the direct final rule or the portion of the rule that received adverse comment. The EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which provisions will become effective and which provisions are being withdrawn. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the subsequent final action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will become effective on October 16, 2015 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and therefore is not subject to these requirements.

    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. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are refiners, importers or blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in North Carolina and gasoline distributers and retail stations in North Carolina. This action relaxes the federal RVP standard for gasoline sold in Mecklenburg and Gaston counties during the summertime ozone season (June 1 to September 15 of each year) to allow the RVP for gasoline sold in Mecklenburg and Gaston counties to rise from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities beyond those, if any, already required by or resulting from the CAA section 211(h) Volatility Control program. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This final rule does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action implements mandates specifically and explicitly set forth in CAA section 211(h) without the exercise of any policy discretion by the EPA.

    E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This final rule affects only those refiners, importers or blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in the Birmingham area and gasoline distributers and retail stations in the Birmingham area. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

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

    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 Advancement Act

    This action does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the applicable ozone NAAQS which establish the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This rule will relax the applicable volatility standard of gasoline during the summer, possibly resulting in slightly higher mobile source emissions. However, the state of North Carolina has demonstrated in its non-interference demonstration that this action will not interfere with maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in the Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, North Carolina 2008 ozone area, or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Mecklenburg and Gaston counties are part of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, North Carolina 2008 ozone area. Therefore, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations are not an anticipated result. The results of this evaluation are contained in Section V. of this direct final rule. A copy of North Carolina's March 11, 2015 letter requesting that the EPA relax the gasoline RVP standard, including the technical analysis demonstrating that the less stringent gasoline RVP in the Mecklenburg and Gaston counties would not interfere with continued maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, North Carolina ozone area, or with any other applicable CAA requirement, has been placed in the public docket for this action.

    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

    L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this direct final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel document of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).

    VIII. Legal Authority and Statutory Provisions

    The statutory authority for this action is granted to the EPA by Sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 5, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency is amending 40 CFR part 80 as follows:

    PART 80—REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES 1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7542, 7545, and 7601(a).

    2. In § 80.27(a)(2)(ii), the table is amended by: a. Removing the entry for North Carolina and footnotes 6 and 7; b. Redesignating footnote 8 as footnote 6; c. Adding a new entry in alphabetical order for North Carolina and a new footnote 7.

    The additions read as follows:

    § 80.27 Controls and prohibitions on gasoline volatility.

    (a) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    Applicable Standards 1 1992 and Subsequent Years State May June July August September *         *         *         *         *         *         * North Carolina 7 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1 Standards are expressed in pounds per square inch (psi).     *         *         *         *         *         *         * 7 The standard for Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties from June 1 until September 15 in 1992 through October 16, 2015 was 7.8 psi.     *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-20243 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0017; FRL-9930-16] Lavandulyl Senecioate; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the arthropod pheromone, lavandulyl senecioate, in or on all raw agricultural commodities when applied or used in microbeads/dispensers at a rate not to exceed 150 grams active ingredient/acre/year in accordance with good agricultural practices. Suterra, LLC submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of lavandulyl senecioate.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective August 17, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 16, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0017, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0017 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 16, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0017, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11611) (FRL-9922-68), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 4F8292) by Suterra, LLC, 20950 NE Talus Place, Bend, OR 97701. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of lavandulyl senecioate in or on all raw agricultural commodities when applied to growing crops at a rate not to exceed 150 grams of active ingredient per acre per year. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Suterra, LLC, which is available in the docket via http://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received on the notice of filing.

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

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

    III. Toxicological Profile

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

    A. Overview of Lavandulyl Senecioate

    Lavandulyl senecioate (5-methyl-2-(1-methylethenyl)-4-hexenyl 3-methyl-2-butonate) is a technical grade synthetic arthropod pheromone. This arthropod pheromone is structurally similar to and mimics a naturally occurring pheromone produced by the female vine mealybug (Planococcus ficus) to attract males for mating. This pheromone is used to disrupt the normal mating cycle of the vine mealybug and has a non-toxic mode of action.

    As an arthropod pheromone, lavandulyl senecioate is exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used in retrievably sized polymeric matrix dispensers in or on all raw agricultural commodities when applied to growing crops only at a rate not to exceed 150 grams active ingredient/acre/year in accordance with good agricultural practices (40 CFR 180.1124). The petitioner is requesting to apply this arthropod pheromone in an aqueous suspension of micro-bead/dispensers via normal spray equipment; therefore, the proposed new use of lavandulyl senecioate is not covered under the existing tolerance exemption listed in 40 CFR 180.1124. See the document entitled, “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Lavandulyl Senecioate” (June 30, 2015), available in the docket for this action.

    B. Biochemical Pesticide Toxicology Data Requirements

    All applicable mammalian toxicology data requirements supporting the petition to exempt residues of the arthropod pheromone, lavandulyl senecioate, from the requirement of a tolerance in or on all raw agricultural commodities when applied or used in microbeads/dispensers at a rate not to exceed 150 grams active ingredient/acre/year have been fulfilled. No significant toxicological effects were observed in any of the acute toxicity studies. Three mutagenicity studies submitted indicate that lavandulyl senecioate is not a mutagen. There are no known effects on endocrine systems via oral, dermal, or inhalation routes of exposure.

    In the preamble to the final rule that exempted arthropod pheromones from the requirement of a tolerance when used in retrievably sized polymeric matrix dispensers, the Agency indicated that it did not have a toxicology database for arthropod pheromones that addressed the potential risk of repeated, direct dietary exposure with sprayable formulations; therefore, at that time, the Agency limited the tolerance exemption to arthropod pheromones used in retrievably sized polymeric matrix dispensers with an annual rate limitation of 150 grams of active ingredient per acre. The Agency concluded that the limitations would not result in dietary exposure any greater than what may be found naturally as a result of heavy infestations of the pest arthropod. March 30, 1994 (59 FR 14757) (FRL-4761-9).

    To address the subchronic and prenatal developmental toxicity data requirements for this exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for this arthropod pheromone, lavandulyl senecioate, the petitioner submitted scientific rationales that demonstrate that it is highly unlikely that there will be significant repeated exposure, including dietary exposure and exposure to female humans, to this pheromone when used as proposed based on the extremely low application rate, low emission rate, rapid volatilization after emission from the microbeads, and rapid biodegradation. Taking into account the petitioner's rationale, EPA has concluded that there is unlikely to be exposure that could result in subchronic and developmental effects and so has waived the requirements for subchronic and prenatal developmental testing.

    For a full discussion of the data and rationale upon which EPA relied, and its human health risk assessment based on that data and rationale, please refer to the document entitled, “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Lavandulyl Senecioate” (June 30, 2015). This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES.

    IV. Aggregate Exposures

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

    A. Dietary Exposure

    In the preamble to the final rule, the Agency stated that limiting the exemption to applications of arthropod pheromones in retrievably sized dispensers would severely limit the possibility of direct dietary exposure. The Agency believed that restriction was necessary to protect public health due to a lack of data on repeat exposure but acknowledged that petitioners wanting to use other application methods or formulations could petition for an amendment by demonstrating that the new formulation did not increase the likely dietary exposure. For this tolerance exemption, based on the petitioner's submission concerning the proposed use, the Agency has determined that the proposed use (applying this arthropod pheromone in an aqueous suspension of microbead/dispensers via normal spray equipment with a limitation of 150 grams active ingredient/acre/year) will not result in detectable residues in or on all food commodities. That use is unlikely to result in significant dietary exposure to lavandulyl senecioate based on the extremely low application rate, low emission rate, rapid volatilization after emission from the microbeads, and rapid biodegradation (see document entitled, “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Lavandulyl Senecioate” (June 30, 2015), available in the docket for this action). No significant exposure via drinking water is expected based on the previous information for dietary exposure and the fact that the arthropod pheromone is not to be applied directly to water. However, should any dietary and/or drinking water exposure occur, minimal to no risk is expected for the general population, including infants and children, due to the low toxicity of lavandulyl senecioate as demonstrated in the data submitted and evaluated by the Agency, as fully explained in the document entitled, “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Lavandulyl Senecioate” (June 30, 2015), available in the docket for this action.

    B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure

    Other non-occupational exposure (other than dietary) is not expected because the arthropod pheromone, lavandulyl senecioate, is not approved for residential uses.

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

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

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

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

    FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that, in considering the establishment of a tolerance or tolerance exemption for a pesticide chemical residue, EPA shall assess the available information about consumption patterns among infants and children, special susceptibility of infants and children to pesticide chemical residues, and the cumulative effects on infants and children of the residues and other substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. In addition, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure, unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional or no safety factor when reliable data are available to support a different additional or no safety factor.

    As part of its qualitative assessment, EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on lavandulyl senecioate and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA considers the toxicity database to be complete and has identified no residual uncertainty with regard to prenatal and postnatal toxicity or exposure. No hazard was identified based on the available studies, as fully explained in the document entitled, “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Lavandulyl Senecioate” (June 30, 2015), available in the docket for this action. Based upon its evaluation, EPA concludes that there are no threshold effects of concern to infants or children when lavandulyl senecioate is applied or used in microbeads/dispensers in or on all raw agricultural commodities at a rate not to exceed 150 grams active ingredient/acre/year. As a result, EPA concludes that no additional margin of exposure (safety) is necessary.

    Based on the available data, EPA determines that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to lavandulyl senecioate to the general U.S. population, including infants and children when applied to growing crops using microbeads/dispensers at a rate not to exceed 150 grams active ingredient/acre/year. EPA concludes that an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of lavandulyl senecioate in or on raw agricultural commodities when applied to growing crops using microbeads/dispensers at a rate not to exceed 150 grams active ingredient/acre/year is safe.

    VII. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

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

    VIII. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption is established for residues of the arthropod pheromone, lavandulyl senecioate, in or on all raw agricultural commodities when applied or used in microbeads/dispensers at a rate not to exceed 150 grams active ingredient/acre/year.

    IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    X. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: July 31, 2015. Robert McNally, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. Add § 180.1332 to subpart D to read as follows:
    § 180.1332 Lavandulyl senecioate; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of the arthropod pheromone, lavandulyl senecioate (5-methyl-2-(1-methylethenyl)-4-hexenyl 3-methyl-2-butonate), in or on all raw agricultural commodities when applied or used in microbeads/dispensers at a rate not to exceed 150 grams active ingredient/acre/year in accordance with good agricultural practices.

    [FR Doc. 2015-20257 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 120109034-2171-01] RIN 0648-XE094 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Small-Mesh Multispecies Fishery; Adjustment to the Northern Red Hake Inseason Possession Limit AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; inseason adjustment.

    SUMMARY:

    We announce the reduction of the commercial possession limit for northern red hake for the remainder of the 2015 fishing year. This action is required to prevent the northern red hake total allowable landing limit from being exceeded. This announcement informs the public that the northern red hake possession limit is reduced.

    DATES:

    Effective August 12, 2015 through April, 30, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reid Lichwell, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-675-9112.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The small-mesh multispecies fishery is managed primarily through a series of exemptions from the Northeast Multispecies Fisheries Management Plan. Regulations governing the red hake fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations describing the process to adjust inseason commercial possession limits of northern red hake are described in § 648.86(d)(4) and (5). These regulations require the Regional Administrator to reduce the northern red hake possession limit from 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) to 1,500 lb (680 kg) when landings have been projected to reach or exceed 45 percent of the total allowable landings (TAL). The northern red hake possession limit is required to be further reduced to 400 lb (181 kg) if landings are projected to reach or exceed 62.5 percent of the TAL, unless such a reduction would be expected to prevent the TAL from being reached. The setting of these inseason adjustment thresholds were established in the final rule implementing the small-mesh multispecies specifications for 2015-2017, published in the Federal Register on May 28, 2015 (80 FR 30379).

    These measures were imposed because the annual catch limits (ACL) for northern red hake were exceeded for the 2012 and 2013 fishing years, and northern red hake was experiencing overfishing. To reduce the risk of continued overfishing on the stock and to better constrain catch to the ACL, we implemented this possession limit reduction trigger.

    Based on commercial landings data reported through July 30, 2015, the northern red hake fishery is projected to reach 45 percent of the TAL on August 10, 2015. Based on this projection, reducing the commercial northern red hake possession limit to 1,500 lb (680 kg) is required to prevent the TAL from being exceeded. Upon the effective date of this action, no person may possess on board or land more than 1,500 lb (680 kg) of northern red hake, per trip for the remainder of the fishing year.

    Classification

    This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20221 Filed 8-12-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 158 Monday, August 17, 2015 Proposed Rules OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Part 950 RIN 3206-AM68 Solicitation of Federal Civilian and Uniformed Service Personnel for Contributions to Private Voluntary Organizations; Delay of Effective Date and Addition of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Office of Personnel Management.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule with request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a proposed rule to delay the effective date that appeared in the final rule published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2014 titled “Solicitation of Federal Civilian and Uniformed Service Personnel for Contributions to Private Voluntary Organizations” to January 1, 2017. OPM is requesting comments on the proposed rule.

    DATES:

    OPM must receive comments on or before September 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN number “3206-AM68”, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Capule by telephone at (202) 606-2564; by FAX at (202) 606-5056; or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OPM proposes to delay the effective date of the final rule entitled “Solicitation of Federal Civilian and Uniformed Service Personnel for Contributions to Private Voluntary Organizations” (FR Doc. 2014-08574, in the Federal Register of April 17, 2014 (79 FR 21581)), to January 1, 2017. The new effective date for the CFC regulations would ensure that the tools needed to put these reforms in place—including the pivotal online charity application and donor pledging systems—are thoroughly tested and fully operational before being made available to charities and donors.

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Beth F. Cobert, Acting Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20238 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-58-P
    FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD 5 CFR Part 1605 Default Investment Fund Errors AGENCY:

    Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule with request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (Agency) proposes to amend its regulations to codify procedures for correcting certain default investment fund errors.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before September 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments using one of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov at Docket ID number FRTIB-2015-0003. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Office of General Counsel, Attn: James Petrick, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, 77 K Street NE., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20002.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: The address for sending comments by hand delivery or courier is the same as that for submitting comments by mail.

    Facsimile: Comments may be submitted by facsimile at (202) 942-1676.

    The most helpful comments explain the reason for any recommended change and include data, information, and the authority that supports the recommended change.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Austen Townsend at (202) 864-8647.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Agency administers the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), which was established by the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514. The TSP provisions of FERSA are codified, as amended, largely at 5 U.S.C. 8351 and 8401-79. The TSP is a tax-deferred retirement savings plan for Federal civilian employees, members of the uniformed services, and spouse beneficiaries. The TSP is similar to cash or deferred arrangements established for private-sector employees under section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 401(k)).

    On December 18, 2014, the President signed the Smart Savings Act (“the Act”), Public Law 113-255 (128 Stat. 2920). The Act directed the Agency to invest any sums available for investment in the TSP for which an election has not been made in an age-appropriate target date asset allocation investment fund. On July 13, 2015, the Agency published a proposed rule to change the TSP's default investment fund from the TSP's Government Securities Investment Fund to the age-appropriate TSP Lifecycle Fund (L Fund) for civilian employees. 80 FR 39974. This proposed regulation would update the TSP's existing error correction rules to address the correction of default investment fund errors caused by erroneous dates of birth.

    Default Investment Fund Errors

    Erroneous dates of birth can result from participant error, employing agency error, Agency error, or record-keeper error. A participant's date of birth is used to determine his or her age-appropriate L Fund. An erroneous date of birth might therefore cause a participant's TSP account to be invested in an L Fund that is different from the L Fund his or her account would have been invested in had the participant's correct date of birth been used. This proposed regulation provides that the Agency will pay breakage when an erroneous date of birth caused by Agency or record-keeper error results in default investment in the wrong L Fund.

    In addition, the Agency will charge employing agencies breakage when an erroneous date of birth caused by employing agency error results in default investment in the wrong L Fund. To initiate a breakage calculation for an employee, the employing agency must notify the TSP that the participant is entitled to breakage. A date of birth change received from an employing agency will not trigger corrective action other than to update the date of birth.

    Consistent with the existing error correction procedures at 5 CFR 1605.22 for contribution allocation and interfund transfer errors, the participant must file a breakage claim within 30 days of either the date the TSP provides the participant with a notice reflecting the error or the date the TSP makes available on its Web site a participant statement reflecting the error, whichever is earlier.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation will affect Federal civilian employees and spouse beneficiaries who participate in the Thrift Savings Plan, which is a Federal defined contribution retirement savings plan created under the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514, and which is administered by the Agency.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    I certify that these regulations do not require additional reporting under the criteria of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 602, 632, 653, 1501-1571, the effects of this regulation on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector have been assessed. This regulation will not compel the expenditure in any one year of $100 million or more by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 1532 is not required.

    List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 1605

    Government employees, Pensions, Retirement.

    Gregory T. Long, Executive Director, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Agency proposes to amend 5 CFR chapter VI as follows:

    PART 1605-CORRECTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ERRORS 1. The authority citation for part 1605 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 8351, 8432(a), 8432(d), 8474(b)(5) and (c)(1). Subpart B also issued under section 1043(b) of Public Law 104-106, 110 Stat. 186 and § 7202(m)(2) of Public Law 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388.

    2. Amend § 1605.2 by revising the heading and paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (c) to read as follows:
    § 1605.2 Calculating, posting, and charging breakage on late contributions and loan payments.

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) Use the participant's contribution allocation on file for the “as of” date to determine how the funds would have been invested. If there is no contribution allocation on file, or one cannot be derived based on the investment of contributions, the TSP will consider the funds to have been invested in the default investment fund in effect for the participant on the “as of” date.

    (c) Posting contributions and loan payments. Makeup and late contributions, late loan payments, and breakage, will be posted to the participant's account according to his or her contribution allocation on file for the posting date. If there is no contribution allocation on file for the posting date, they will be posted to the default investment fund in effect for the participant.

    3. Add § 1605.3 to read as follows:
    § 1605.3 Calculating, posting, and charging breakage on errors involving investment in the wrong fund.

    (a) The TSP will calculate and post breakage on date of birth errors that result in default investment in the wrong L Fund, contribution allocation errors, and interfund transfer errors.

    (b) The TSP will charge the employing agency for positive breakage on incorrect dates of birth caused by employing agency error that result in default investment in the wrong L Fund. A date of birth change received from an employing agency will not trigger corrective action other than to update the date of birth. To initiate a breakage calculation for an employee, the employing agency must notify the TSP that the participant is entitled to breakage.

    4. Amend § 1605.13 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
    § 1605.13 Back pay awards and other retroactive pay adjustments.

    (a) * * *

    (3) All contributions made under this paragraph (a) and associated breakage will be invested according to the participant's contribution allocation on the posting date. Breakage will be calculated using the share prices for the default investment fund in effect for the participant in accordance with § 1605.2 unless otherwise required by the employing agency or the court or other tribunal with jurisdiction over the back pay case.

    5. Amend § 1605.16, by re-designating the text of paragraph (a) as paragraph (a)(1), adding paragraph (a)(2), re-designating the text of paragraph (b) as paragraph (b)(1), and adding paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) to read as follows:
    § 1605.16 Claims for correction of employing agency errors; time limitations.

    (a) Agency's discovery of error. (1) Upon discovery of an error made within the past six months involving the correct or timely remittance of payments to the TSP (other than a retirement system misclassification error, as covered in paragraph (c) of this section), an employing agency must promptly correct the error on its own initiative. If the error was made more than six months before it was discovered, the agency may exercise sound discretion in deciding whether to correct it, but, in any event, the agency must act promptly in doing so.

    (2) For errors involving incorrect dates of birth caused by employing agency error that result in default investment in the wrong L Fund, the employing agency must promptly notify the TSP that the participant is entitled to breakage if the error is discovered within 30 days of either the date the TSP provides the participant with a notice reflecting the error or the date the TSP makes available on its Web site a participant statement reflecting the error, whichever is earlier. If it is discovered after that time, the employing agency may use its sound discretion in deciding whether to pay breakage, but, in any event, must act promptly in doing so.

    (b) Participant's discovery of error. (1) If an agency fails to discover an error of which a participant has knowledge involving the correct or timely remittance of a payment to the TSP (other than a retirement system misclassification error as covered by paragraph (c) of this section), the participant may file a claim with his or her employing agency to have the error corrected without a time limit. The agency must promptly correct any such error for which the participant files a claim within six months of its occurrence; if the participant files a claim to correct any such error after that time, the agency may do so at its sound discretion.

    (2) For errors involving incorrect dates of birth that result in default investment in the wrong L Fund of which a participant or beneficiary has knowledge, he or she may file a claim for breakage with the employing agency no later than 30 days after either the date the TSP provides the participant with a notice reflecting the error or the date the TSP makes available on its Web site a participant statement reflecting the error, whichever is earlier. The employing agency must promptly notify the TSP that the participant is entitled to breakage.

    (3) If a participant or beneficiary fails to file a claim for breakage for errors involving incorrect dates of birth in a timely manner, the employing agency may nevertheless, in its sound discretion, pay breakage on any such error that is brought to its attention.

    6. Amend § 1605.22, by revising paragraphs (b)(2), (c)(2), and (c)(3) to read as follows:
    § 1605.22 Claims for correction of Board or TSP record keeper errors; time limitations.

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (2) For errors involving an investment in the wrong fund caused by Board or TSP record keeper error, the Board or the TSP record keeper must promptly pay breakage if it is discovered within 30 days of the issuance of the most recent TSP participant (or loan) statement, transaction confirmation, or other notice that reflected the error, whichever is earlier. If it is discovered after that time, the Board or TSP record keeper may use its sound discretion in deciding whether to pay breakage, but, in any event, must act promptly in doing so.

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (2) For errors involving an investment in the wrong fund of which a participant or beneficiary has knowledge, he or she may file a claim for breakage with the Board or TSP record keeper no later than 30 days after the TSP provides the participant with a transaction confirmation or other notice reflecting the error, or makes available on its Web site a participant statement reflecting the error, whichever is earlier. The Board or TSP record keeper must promptly pay breakage for such errors.

    (3) If a participant or beneficiary fails to file a claim for breakage concerning an error involving an investment in the wrong fund in a timely manner, the Board or TSP record keeper may nevertheless, in its sound discretion, pay breakage for any such error that is brought to its attention.

    7. Amend § 1605.31 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 1605.31 Contributions missed as a result of military service.

    (d) Breakage. The employee is entitled to breakage on agency contributions made under paragraph (c) of this section. The employee will elect to have the calculation based on either the contribution allocation(s) on file for the participant during the period of military service or the default investment fund in effect for the participant; the participant must make this election at the same time his or her makeup schedule is established pursuant to § 1605.11(c).

    [FR Doc. 2015-20273 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Office of the Secretary 6 CFR Part 5 [Docket No. DHS-2015-0046] Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security DHS/CBP-001, Import Information System, System of Records, System of Records AGENCY:

    Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security is giving concurrent notice for the newly established “Department of Homeland Security/CBP-001, Import Information System, System of Records” and this proposed rulemaking. In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security concurrently proposes to consolidate, update, and rename two current Department of Homeland Security systems of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS/CBP-001 Automated Commercial Environment/International Trade Data System System of Records” and “Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS/CBP-015 Automated Commercial System System of Records” as one new system of records. The consolidated system of records notice will be titled, “Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS/CBP-001 Import Information System System of Records.” This system of records will continue to collect and maintain records on all commercial goods imported into the United States, as well as information pertaining to the carrier, broker, importer, and other persons associated with the manifest, import, or commercial entry transactions for the goods. In this proposed rulemaking, the Department proposes to exempt portions of the system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2015-0046, by one of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-343-4010.

    Mail: Karen L. Neuman, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For general questions, please contact: John Connors (202) 344-1610, CBP Privacy Officer, Office of the Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC 20229. For privacy questions, please contact: Karen L. Neuman, (202) 343-1717, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528-0655.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) proposes to consolidate, update, and rename as one system of records notice (SORN) the information currently contained in two DHS SORNs titled, “DHS/CBP-001 Automated Commercial Environment/International Trade Data System (ACE/ITDS) System of Records” (71 FR 3109, January 19, 2006) and “DHS/CBP-015 Automated Commercial System (ACS) System of Records” (73 FR 77759, December 19, 2008) . This new SORN, entitled “DHS/CBP-001 Import Information System (IIS),” will inform the public about changes to the categories of individuals, categories of records, and routine uses contained in the consolidation of the former ACS and ACE/ITDS SORNs.

    ACS, a decades old trade information database and information technology (IT) system, was deployed to track, control, and process all commercial goods imported into the United States. ACE, part of a multi-year modernization effort since 2001 to replace ACS, continues to be designed to manage CBP's import trade data and related transaction information. ACE/ITDS serves three sets of core stakeholders: The internal DHS/CBP users, Participating Government Agencies (PGA), and the trade community. ACE is the IT backbone for the ITDS, an interagency initiative formalized under the SAFE Port Act of 2006 to create a single window for the trade community and PGAs involved in importing and exporting. DHS/CBP has provided notice to the public and trade community that in the future, ACS, the IT system, will be fully phased out and replaced by ACE. As such, and to simplify the trade community's and the public's understanding of how trade information will be handled after ACE implementation, DHS/CBP is publishing this Import Information System (IIS) SORN to identify a single repository for import trade information. DHS/CBP is also publishing a combined ACE-ITDS/ACS Privacy Impact Assessment on its Web site (http://www.dhs.gov/privacy) to inform the public of the operation and inter-connectedness of the IT systems, ACS and ACE, and to assess the privacy impact of these systems using the fair information practice principles. This IIS system of records allows DHS/CBP to collect and maintain records on all commercial goods imported into the United States, along with related information about persons associated with those transactions, and manifest information.

    As part of this consolidation and issuance of IIS, the category of individuals and category of records sections in the former ACS and ACE-ITDS have been merged to account for the data in both IT systems, as well as paper records related to the information in these systems. The category of individuals section is amended to remove reference to DHS/CBP employees and employees of other federal agencies for purposes of maintaining their user access accounts to the ACE-ITDS Portal, because these individuals are now covered under a DHS-wide SORN, “DHS/ALL-004 General Information Technology Access Account Records System (GITAARS) (77 FR 70792, November 27, 2012). The category of records for IIS will also include notations and results of examinations and document review for cleared merchandise to clarify and better identify DHS and PGA-generated information related to the processing of the import entry transaction. Additionally, the category of records is being expanded to address the expansion of information DHS/CBP proposes to collect on its revised Importer ID Input Record (CBP Form 5106). DHS/CBP is adding required elements for the name (First, Middle, Last) and business contact information (job title and phone) of Senior Company Officers of the Importer; DHS/CBP is also adding optional data fields on the form for the Senior Officers to provide Social Security number (SSN) or Passport Number and Country of Issuance. These latter, optional data elements are to facilitate Importer screening and verification.

    The authorities sections from the previous SORNs have been combined, reconciled to address duplication, and updated to account for expanded information collected about business associations as part of the ACE-ITDS Portal user account. The purpose section for IIS reflects an update to the combined purposes for ACS and ACE-ITDS and addresses DHS/CBP's broad use of its import trade transaction IT systems (ACS and ACE) to collect and manage records to track, control, and process all commercial goods imported into the United States.

    Consistent with DHS's information-sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/CBP-001 Import Information System (IIS) may be shared with other DHS Components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, or other homeland security functions. In addition, information may be shared with appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in this SORN and as otherwise authorized under the Privacy Act.

    Information in IIS may be shared for the same routine uses as were previously published in ACS and ACE-ITDS, and are now updated in this document:

    • ACS's former Routine Use K is now reclassified as Routine Use G.

    ○ Routine Use G permits sharing of data under the following circumstances: “To appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations responsible for investigating or prosecuting the violations of, or for enforcing or implementing, a statute, rule, regulation, order, license, or treaty where DHS determines that the information would assist in the enforcement of civil or criminal laws.”

    • ACE-ITDS's former Routine Use 3 is now reclassified as Routine Use K.

    ○ Routine Use K permits sharing of data under the following circumstances: “To a federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international agency, maintaining civil, criminal or other relevant enforcement information, or other pertinent information, which has requested information relevant to or necessary to the requesting agency's or the bureau's hiring or retention of an individual, or issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant, or other benefit.”

    Additionally, DHS/CBP is adding another routine use to IIS, Routine Use R, to provide explicit coverage for the mandated release of Manifest Information as set forth in section 1431 of title 19, United States Code and implemented through title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, part 103:

    • Routine Use R permits sharing of data under the following circumstances: “To paid subscribers, in accordance with applicable regulations, for the purpose of providing access to manifest information as set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1431.”

    DHS/CBP will not assert any exemptions with regard to information provided by or on behalf of an individual. However, this data may be shared with law enforcement and/or intelligence agencies pursuant to the routine uses identified in the IIS SORN and as otherwise authorized under the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act requires that DHS maintain an accounting of such disclosures. Disclosing the fact that a law enforcement and/or intelligence agency has sought particular records may interfere with or disclose techniques and procedures related to ongoing law enforcement investigations. As such, DHS is issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act elsewhere in the Federal Register. This updated system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.

    II. Privacy Act

    The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate personally identifiable information. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. As a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals where systems of records maintain information on U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and non-immigrant aliens.

    The Privacy Act allows government agencies to exempt certain records from the access and amendment provisions. If an agency claims an exemption, however, it must issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to make clear to the public the reasons why a particular exemption is claimed.

    DHS is claiming exemptions from certain requirements of the Privacy Act for DHS/CBP-001 Import Information System System of Records.

    No exemption shall be asserted with respect to information maintained in the system as it relates to data submitted by or on behalf of a person who travels to visit the United States, nor shall an exemption be asserted with respect to the resulting determination (authorized to travel, not authorized to travel, pending).

    Some information in DHS/CBP-001 Import Information System System of Records relates to official DHS national security, law enforcement or intelligence activities. This system may contain records or information pertaining to the accounting of disclosures made from IIS to other law enforcement or intelligence agencies (Federal, State, local, foreign, international, or tribal) in accordance with the published routine uses. For the accounting of these disclosures only, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2), DHS will claim the original exemptions for these records or information from subsection (c)(3), (e)(8), and (g) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, as necessary and appropriate to protect such information. Moreover, DHS will add this exemption to Appendix C to 6 CFR part 5, DHS Systems of Records Exempt from the Privacy Act. Such exempt records or information may be law enforcement or national security investigation records, law enforcement activity and encounter records, or terrorist screening records.

    DHS needs these exemptions in order to protect information relating to law enforcement investigations from disclosure to subjects of investigations and others who could interfere with investigatory and law enforcement activities. Specifically, the exemptions are required to: Preclude subjects of investigations from frustrating the investigative process; avoid disclosure of investigative techniques; protect the identities and physical safety of confidential informants and of law enforcement personnel; ensure DHS's and other federal agencies' ability to obtain information from third parties and other sources; protect the privacy of third parties; and safeguard sensitive information.

    Nonetheless, DHS will examine each request on a case-by-case basis, and, after conferring with the appropriate component or agency, may waive applicable exemptions in appropriate circumstances and where it would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement or national security investigation.

    Again, DHS will not assert any exemption with respect to information maintained in the system that is collected from a person and submitted by that person's air or vessel carrier, if that person, or his or her agent, seeks access or amendment of such information.

    List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5

    Freedom of information, Privacy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for Part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; 5 U.S.C. 301. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.

    2. At the end of Appendix C to Part 5, add paragraph “74” to read as follows: Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of Records Exempt From the Privacy Act.

    74. DHS/CBP-001, Import Information System (IIS). A portion of the following system of records is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (e)(8), and (g)(1) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), and from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). Further, no exemption shall be asserted with respect to information maintained in the system as it relates to data submitted by or on behalf of a person who travels to visit the United States and crosses the border, nor shall an exemption be asserted with respect to the resulting determination (approval or denial). After conferring with the appropriate component or agency, DHS may waive applicable exemptions in appropriate circumstances and where it would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement purposes of the systems from which the information is recompiled or in which it is contained. Exemptions from the above particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, when information in this system of records is may impede a law enforcement, intelligence activities and national security investigation:

    (a) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosure) because making available to a record subject the accounting of disclosures from records concerning him or her would specifically reveal any investigative interest in the individual. Revealing this information could reasonably be expected to compromise ongoing efforts to investigate a violation of U.S. law, including investigations of a known or suspected terrorist, by notifying the record subject that he or she is under investigation. This information could also permit the record subject to take measures to impede the investigation, e.g., destroy evidence, intimidate potential witnesses, or flee the area to avoid or impede the investigation.

    (b) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because to require individual notice of disclosure of information due to compulsory legal process would pose an impossible administrative burden on DHS and other agencies and could alert the subjects of counterterrorism or law enforcement investigations to the fact of those investigations when not previously known.

    (c) From subsection (g)(1) (Civil Remedies) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.

    Dated: July 31, 2015. Karen L. Neuman, Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19726 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISION 10 CFR Chapter I [NRC-2015-0176] Abnormal Occurrence Reports AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed revision to policy statement; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing revisions to its policy statement on reporting abnormal occurrences (AO) to Congress. The proposed revisions would clarify and restructure the criteria used by the NRC and Agreement States for determining whether to consider an incident or event as an AO. The proposed revisions to the policy statement would ensure consistency with current NRC guidance and regulations. The NRC is requesting public comments on the proposed revision to the policy statement at this time.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by November 16, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0176. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Luis A. Benevides, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2457; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0176 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0176.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0176 in the subject line of your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

    II. Background

    Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (Pub. L. 93-438), defines an AO as an unscheduled incident or event that the NRC determines to be significant from the standpoint of public health or safety. The Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-66) requires that AOs be reported to Congress annually. As required by Section 208, the discussion for each event includes the date and place, the nature and probable consequences, the cause or causes, and the action taken to prevent recurrence. The Commission must also widely disseminate the AO report to the public within 15 days of publishing the AO report to Congress.

    Abnormal Occurrence Reporting

    The Commission has developed the AO policy statement to comply with Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. The intent of the act is to keep Congress and the public informed of unscheduled incidents or events that the Commission considers significant from the standpoint of public health and safety. The policy reflects a range of health and safety concerns and applies to incidents and events involving a single individual, as well as those having an overall impact on the general public. The AO criteria use a high reporting threshold so that only those events considered significant from the standpoint of public health and safety are reported to Congress.

    Applicability

    Implementation of Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, “Abnormal Occurrence Reports,” involves the conduct of Commission business and does not impose requirements on licensees or certified facilities. The reports cover certain unscheduled incidents or events related to the manufacture, construction, or operation of a facility or conduct of an activity subject to the requirements of parts 20, 30 through 37, 39, 40, 50, 61, 70, 71, 72, or 76 in chapter I of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR).

    Agreement States provide information to the NRC on incidents and events involving applicable nuclear materials in their States. Agreement States are those States that have entered into formal agreements with the NRC, pursuant to Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA) (Pub. L. 83-703), to regulate certain quantities of AEA material at facilities located within their borders. Events reported by Agreement States that reach the threshold for reporting as AOs are also published in the “Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences.”

    Proposed Revisions

    The NRC is proposing revisions to the AO criteria to clarify the criteria for determining events that are significant from the standpoint of public health and safety and should therefore be considered AOs. The proposed revisions would also make the criteria consistent with NUREG-1614, Volume 6, “U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2014-2018,” issued August 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14246A439), and new NRC requirements in 10 CFR part 37, “Physical protection of category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive material.” Further, the NRC proposes to revise the AO criteria to separate “Other Events of Interest” from the AO criteria to clearly delineate that events considered “Other Events of Interest” are not AOs, but do represent significant events that the Commission deems appropriate to report to Congress. Finally, restructuring and minor editorial changes are proposed to some sections for clarity.

    The NRC is requesting public comments on the proposed revision to the policy statement at this time. The NRC is specifically seeking public comments on screening all reports for exposures to embryo/fetus or nursing child as an AO under Criteria l.A.2, unintended radiation exposure, versus screening reports required by 10 CFR 35.3047 for exposures to embryo/fetus or nursing child resulting from treatment to a patient as an AO under Criteria III.C, “Events involving the Medical Use of Radioactive Materials in Patients or Human Research Subjects.”

    The entire text of the proposed revision of the policy statement is available as an attachment to this document.

    Licensee Reports

    The proposed changes to the general policy statement would not change the reporting requirements for NRC licensees in Commission regulations, license conditions, or technical specifications. The NRC licensees will continue to submit required reports on a wide range of events, including instrument malfunctions and deviations from normal operating procedures that may not be significant from the standpoint of the public health and safety but provide data useful to the Commission in monitoring operating trends of licensed facilities and in comparing the actual performance of these facilities with their design and/or licensing basis.

    III. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This policy statement does not contain information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Public Protection Notification

    The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting documents displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of August, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
    Attachment—Abnormal Occurrence Statement of Policy

    The Commission will apply the following policy in determining whether an incident or event at a facility or involving an activity that is licensed or otherwise regulated by the Commission or an Agreement State is an abnormal occurrence (AO).1

    1 Events reported to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by Agreement States that reach the threshold for reporting as AOs will be reported as such by the Commission.

    An incident or event is considered an AO if it involves a major reduction in the protection of public health or safety. The incident or event has a moderate or severe impact on public health or safety and could include, but need not be limited to, the following:

    (1) Moderate exposure to, or release of, radioactive material licensed by or otherwise regulated by the Commission or Agreement States;

    (2) major degradation of essential safety-related equipment;

    (3) major deficiencies in design, construction, use of, or management controls for facilities or radioactive material licensed by or otherwise regulated by the Commission or Agreement States; or

    (4) substantiated case of actual loss, theft, or diversion of risk significant radioactive material licensed by or otherwise regulated by the Commission or Agreement States.

    The criteria for determining whether to consider an incident or event for reporting as an AO are set forth in Appendix A of this policy statement.

    Commission Dissemination of Abnormal Occurrence Information

    The Commission widely disseminates the AO reports to the public. The Commission will submit an annual report to Congress on AOs that occur at or are associated with any facility or activity that is licensed or otherwise regulated pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. This report gives the date, place, nature, and probable consequences of each AO; the cause or causes of each AO; and any action taken to prevent recurrence.

    Appendix A: Abnormal Occurrence Criteria

    An accident or event is considered an abnormal occurrence (AO) if it involves a major reduction in the degree of protection of public health or safety. This type of incident or event has a moderate or severe impact on public health or safety and could include, but need not be limited to, the following:

    (1) Moderate exposure to, or release of, radioactive material licensed by or otherwise regulated by the Commission or Agreement States;

    (2) major degradation of essential safety-related equipment;

    (3) major deficiencies in design, construction, use of, or management controls for facilities or radioactive material licensed by or otherwise regulated by the Commission or Agreement States; or

    (4) substantiated case of actual loss, theft, or diversion of risk-significant radioactive material licensed by or otherwise regulated by the Commission or Agreement States.

    Abnormal Occurrence Criteria

    The following presents the criteria, by types of events, used to determine which events will be considered for reporting as AOs.

    I. All Licensees  2

    2 Medical patients are excluded from consideration under this criterion and these criteria do not apply to medical events defined in § 35.3045 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), which are considered in AO Criteria III.C, “Events involving the Medical Use of Radioactive Materials in Patients or Human Research Subjects.”

    A. Human Exposure to Radiation From Licensed Material

    1. Any unintended radiation exposure to an adult (any individual 18 years of age or older) resulting in:

    (a) An annual total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) of 250 millisievert (mSv) (25 rem) or more;

    (b) an annual sum of the deep dose equivalent (external dose) and committed dose equivalent (intake of radioactive material) to any individual organ other than the lens of the eye, the bone marrow, and the gonads of 2,500 mSv (250 rem) or more;

    (c) an annual dose equivalent to the lens of the eye of 1 Sv (100 rem) or more;

    (d) an annual sum of the deep dose equivalent and committed dose equivalent to the bone marrow of 1 Sv (100 rem) or more;

    (e) a committed dose equivalent to the gonads of 2,500 mSv (250 rem) or more; or

    (f) an annual shallow dose equivalent to the skin or extremities of 2,500 mSv (250 rem) or more.

    2. Any unintended radiation exposure to any minor (an individual less than 18 years of age) resulting in an annual TEDE of 50 mSv (5 rem) or more, or to an embryo/fetus resulting in a dose equivalent of 50 mSv (5 rem) or more.

    3. Any radiation exposure that has resulted in unintended permanent functional damage to an organ or a physiological system as determined by an independent physician 3 deemed qualified by the NRC or Agreement State.

    3 Independent physician is defined to be a physician not on the licensee's staff and who was not involved in the care of the patient involved.

    B. Discharge or Dispersal of Radioactive Material From Its Intended Place of Confinement

    The release of radioactive material to an unrestricted area in concentrations that, if averaged over a period of 24 hours, exceeds 5,000 times the values specified in Table 2 of appendix B, “Annual Limits on Intake (ALIs) and Derived Air Concentrations (DACs) of Radionuclides for Occupational Exposure; Effluent Concentrations; Concentrations for Release to Sewerage,” to 10 CFR part 20, “Standards for protection against radiation,” unless the licensee has demonstrated compliance with 10 CFR 20.1301, “Dose limits for individual members of the public,” using 10 CFR 20.1302(b)(1) or 10 CFR 20.1302(b)(2)(ii). This criterion does not apply to transportation events.

    C. Theft, Diversion, or Loss of Licensed Material; Sabotage; or Security Breach 4 5 6

    4 Information pertaining to certain incidents may be either classified or under consideration for classification because of national security implications. Classified information will be withheld when formally reporting these incidents in accordance with Executive Order 13526, as amended (“Classified National Security Information” (75 FR 707), or any predecessor or successor order to require protection against unauthorized disclosures. Any classified details about these incidents would be available to the Congress, upon request, under appropriate security arrangements.

    5 Information pertaining to certain incidents may be Safeguards Information as defined in 10 CFR 73.2 because of safety and security implications. The AO report would withhold specific safeguards information in accordance with Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Any safeguards details regarding these incidents would be available to the Congress, upon request, under appropriate security arrangements.

    6 Reporting lost or stolen material is based on the activity of the source at the time the radioactive material was known to be lost or stolen. If, by the time the AO report is due to Congress, the radioactive material has decayed to below the thresholds listed in appendix A of 10 CFR part 37, the report will clarify that the radioactive material has decayed below the thresholds.

    1. Any stolen, diverted, abandoned, or unrecovered lost radioactive material that meets or exceeds the thresholds listed in appendix A of 10 CFR part 37, “Physical protection of category 1 and category 2 quantities of radioactive material.” Excluded from reporting under this criterion are those events involving sources that are lost or abandoned under the following conditions: Sources that have been lost and for which a reasonable attempt at recovery has been made without success or irretrievable well logging sources as defined in 10 CFR 39.2, “Definitions.” These sources are only excluded if there is reasonable assurance that the doses from these sources have not exceeded and will not exceed the reporting thresholds specified in AO Criteria I.A.1 and I.A.2 and the agency has determined that the risk of theft or diversion is acceptably low.

    2. An act that results in radiological sabotage as defined in 10 CFR 73.2, “Definitions.”

    3. Any substantiated 7 case of actual theft, diversion, or loss of a formula quantity of special nuclear material 8 or an inventory discrepancy of a formula quantity of special nuclear material that is judged to be caused by theft or diversion.

    7 “Substantiated” means a situation in which there is an indication of loss, theft, or unlawful diversion, such as: An allegation of diversion, report of lost or stolen material, or other indication of loss of material control or accountability that cannot be refuted following an investigation; and requires further action on the part of the agency or other proper authorities.

    8 Formula quantity of special nuclear material is defined in 10 CFR 70.4, “Definitions.”

    4. Any substantial breakdown 9 of physical security, cyber security, or material control and accountability programs that significantly weakens the protection against loss, theft, diversion, or sabotage.

    9 A substantial breakdown is defined as a red finding under the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) in the physical security inspection program or any plant or facility determined to have overall unacceptable performance.

    5. Any significant unauthorized disclosures (loss, theft, and/or deliberate) of classified information that harms national security or safeguards information that threatens public health and safety.

    D. Initiation of High-Level NRC Team Inspection  10

    10 This item addresses initiation of any incident investigation teams, as described in NRC Management Directive (MD) 8.3, “NRC Incident Investigation Program” (see http://www.internal.nrc.gov/policy/directives/toc/md8.3.htm), or initiation of any accident review groups, as described in MD 8.9, “Accident Investigation” (see http://www.internal.nrc.gov/policy/directives/toc/md8.9.htm).

    II. Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Licensees A. Malfunction of Facility, Structures, or Equipment

    1. Exceeding a safety limit of license technical specification (TS) (10 CFR 50.36(c)).

    2. Serious degradation of fuel integrity, primary coolant pressure boundary, or primary containment boundary.

    3. Loss of plant capability to perform essential safety functions so that a release of radioactive materials, which could result in exceeding the dose limits of 10 CFR part 100, “Reactor Site Criteria,” or five times the dose limits of General Design Criteria (GDC) 19 in appendix A, “General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,” to 10 CFR part 50, “Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities,” could occur from a postulated transient or accident (e.g., loss of emergency core cooling system, loss of control rod system).

    B. Design or Safety Analysis Deficiency, Personnel Error, or Procedural or Administrative Inadequacy

    1. Discovery of a major condition not specifically considered in the safety analysis report or TS that requires immediate remedial action.

    2. Personnel error or procedural deficiencies that result in loss of plant capability to perform essential safety functions so that a release of radioactive materials, which could result in exceeding the dose limits of 10 CFR part 100 or five times the dose limits of GDC 19 in appendix A to 10 CFR part 50, could occur from a postulated transient or accident (e.g., loss of emergency core cooling system, loss of control rod drive mechanism).

    C. Any Operating Reactor Events or Conditions Evaluated by the NRC Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) To Be the Result of or Associated With Licensee Performance Issues of High Safety Significance  11

    11 The NRC ROP uses four colors to describe the safety significance of licensee performance. As defined in NRC MD 8.13, “Reactor Oversight Process” (see http://www.internal.nrc.gov/policy/directives/toc/md8.13.htm), green is used for very low safety significance, white is used for low to moderate safety significance, yellow is used for substantial safety significance, and red is used for high safety significance. Reactor conditions or performance indicators evaluated to be red are considered AOs.

    D. Any Operating Reactor Events or Conditions Evaluated by the NRC Accident Sequence Precursor (ASP) Program To Have a Conditional Core Damage Probability (CCDP) or Change in Core Damage Probability (ΔCDP) of Greater Than or Equal to 1 × 10 3 12

    12 Results from the NRC ASP program are used to monitor agency performance against the agency's strategic safety goal (e.g., ensure the safe use of radioactive materials) and objectives (e.g., prevent and mitigate accidents and ensure radiation safety). A precursor event with a CCDP or ΔCDP of greater than or equal to 1 × 10 3 is used as a performance indicator for the strategic safety goal by determining that there have been no significant precursors of a nuclear reactor accident and that there have been no more than one significant adverse trend in industry safety performance.

    E. Any Operating Reactor Plants That Are Determined To Have Overall Unacceptable Performance or Are in a Shutdown Condition as a Result of Significant Performance Problems and/or Operational Event(s)  13

    13 Any plants assessed by the ROP to be in the unacceptable performance column, as described in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0305, “Operating Reactor Assessment Program” (see http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1508/ML15089A315.pdf), or under the NRC IMC 0350, “Oversight of Reactor Facilities in a Shutdown Condition Due to Significant Performance and/or Operational Concerns” (see http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0634/ML063400076.pdf). This assessment of safety performance is based on the number and significance of NRC inspection findings and licensee performance indicators.

    III. Events at Facilities Other Than Nuclear Power Plants and All Transportation Events A. Events Involving Design, Analysis, Construction, Testing, Operation, Transport, Use, or Disposal

    1. An accidental criticality.

    2. A major deficiency in design, construction, control, or operation having significant safety implications that require immediate remedial action.

    3. A serious safety-significant deficiency in management or procedural controls.

    4. A series of events (in which the individual events are not of major importance), recurring incidents, or incidents with implications for similar facilities (generic incidents) that raise a major safety concern.

    B. Fuel Cycle Facilities  14

    14 Criterion III.A also applies to Fuel Cycle Facilities.

    1. Absence or failure of all safety controls (engineered and human) such that conditions were present for the occurrence of a high-consequence event involving an NRC-regulated hazard (radiological or chemical).15

    15 High-consequence events for facilities licensed under 10 CFR part 70 are those that could seriously harm the worker or a member of the public in accordance with 10 CFR 70.61. The integrated safety analysis (ISA) conducted and maintained by the licensee or applicant of 10 CFR part 70 fuel cycle facilities identifies such hazards and the safety controls (10 CFR 70.62(c)) applied to meet the performance requirements in accordance with 10 CFR 70.61(b) through (d). Fuel cycle facilities licensed under 10 CFR part 40 or certified under 10 CFR part 76 have licensing basis documents that describe facility specific hazards, consequences, and those controls utilized to prevent or mitigate the consequences of such accidents. For these facilities, a high-consequence event would be a release that has the potential to cause acute radiological or chemical exposures to a worker or a member of the public similar to that defined in NUREG-1520, Revision 2, Appendix A to Chapter 3, Section A.2, under “Consequence Category 3 (High Consequences)” (see http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1520/).

    2. An NRC-ordered safety-related or security-related immediate remedial action.

    C. Events Involving the Medical Use of Radioactive Materials in Patients or Human Research Subjects  16

    16 Criteria III.A.2, III.A.3, and III.A.4 also apply to medical licensees.

    1. A medical event, as defined in 10 CFR 35.3045, which results in a dose that:

    (a) Is equal to or greater than 1 Gray (Gy) (100 rad) to a major portion of the bone marrow or to the lens of the eye; or equal or greater than 2.5 Gy (250 rad) to the gonads;

    or

    (b) exceeds, by 10 Gy (1,000 rad), the expected dose to any other organ or tissue from the administration defined in the written directive; and

    2. A medical event, as defined in 10 CFR 35.3045, which involves:

    (a) A dose or dosage that is at least 50 percent greater than that prescribed, or

    (b) a prescribed dose or dosage that

    (i) uses the wrong radiopharmaceutical or unsealed byproduct material; or

    (ii) is delivered by the wrong route of administration; or

    (iii) is delivered to the wrong treatment site; or

    (iv) is delivered by the wrong treatment mode; or

    (v) is from a leaking source or sources; or

    (vi) is delivered to the wrong individual or human research subject.

    Appendix B: Other Events of Interest

    This appendix discusses other events of interest that do not meet the AO criteria in Appendix A. The Commission may determine that events, other than AOs, may be of interest to Congress and the public and should be included in an appendix to the AO report as “Other Events of Interest.” Such events may include, but are not necessarily limited to, events that do not meet the AO criteria but that have been perceived by Congress or the public to be of high health and safety significance, have received significant media coverage, or have caused the NRC to increase its attention to or oversight of a program area, or a group of similar events that have resulted in licensed materials entering the public domain in an uncontrolled manner.

    [FR Doc. 2015-20260 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0370; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-2] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Redesignation and Expansion of Restricted Area R-4403; Gainesville, MS AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This SNPRM amends the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on July 10, 2014, proposing to redesignate and expand restricted area R-4403, Gainesville, MS, by changing the parameters of some restricted area subareas. The changes would include expanding the time of designation, modifying some restricted area lateral and vertical boundaries, and eliminating the proposed air-to-ground munitions delivery in some parts of the restricted area complex.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; telephone: (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-0370 and Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-2, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at www.regulations.gov. Comments on environmental and land use aspects to should be directed to: Mr. David Lorance, P.E., Center Environmental Officer, Center Operations Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Stennis Space Center, Roy S. Estess Building 1100, Mail Code RA02, Stennis Space Center, MS 39529-6000.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would restructure the restricted airspace at the Stennis Space Center, MS, to enhance aviation safety and accommodate essential NASA and Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC) requirements.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-0370 and Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-2) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at www.regulations.gov.

    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-0370 and Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-2.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at www.regulations.gov.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person at the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Background

    On July 10, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register an NPRM proposing to redesignate and expand restricted area R-4403, Gainesville, MS, to support missions of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC) (79 FR 39344). Eight comments were received; two commenters supported the proposal, four commenters posed limited concerns, and the remaining two commenters objected to the proposal.

    Subsequent to publication, both NASA and NSWC revised their airspace proposal by changing certain restricted area boundaries, eliminating some proposed activities and increasing the proposed times of use of the airspace. The changes are described in the next section, below.

    Since these changes to the proposal are significant, the FAA has determined it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment. The FAA will dispose of all the comments to the NPRM and SNPRM when it issues its final determination on the proposal.

    Differences From NPRM

    The southern boundary of R-4403B and R-4403C is shifted slightly to the north to address a comment that the restricted areas were too close to Interstate I-10, which is used by some pilots as a visual flight reference.

    The NPRM proposed to establish R-4403C, extending from the surface up to but not including 6,000 feet MSL; and to establish R-4403D, with the same lateral boundaries as R-4403C, and extending above R-4403C from 6,000 feet MSL up to 10,000 feet MSL. This SNPRM proposes to combine R-4403C and R-4403D into a single restricted area extending from the surface up to 10,000 feet MSL. This combined area would be designated R-4403C and the formerly proposed designation “R-4403D” would not be used.

    The NPRM proposed the time of designation for restricted areas R-4403C, D, E and F as “Intermittent, 1800 to 2400 local time, as activated by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance; other times by NOTAM with air traffic control (ATC) approval.” The SNPRM would revise the time of designation for R-4403C, E and F to “Intermittent, 2000 to 0500 local time, as activated by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance; and 1800 to 2000 local time, November 1 to March 1, as activated by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance, not to exceed 20 days per year.” The new times would expand the basic time frame during which the restricted areas could be activated from six hours per day to nine hours per day. Further, it would add a provision allowing for additional activation during the hours 1800 to 2000 local time between November 1 and March 1. However, use of the 1800 to 2000 time frame between November 1 and March 1 would be limited to a maximum of 20 days per year. The provision in the NPRM allowing for activation of R-4403C, E and F at “other times by NOTAM with ATC approval” is removed from consideration in this proposal.

    The NPRM proposed the use of R-4403E and F for delivery of air-to-ground munitions at a ground target by aircraft, including AC-130 gunships and armed helicopters. The NSWC determined that the area is too small to contain the weapons safety footprint, so R-4403E and F would only be used to contain air-to-ground firing of non-eye-safe lasers. Ground forces would use lasers that are eye-safe in R-4403E and F to signal military aircraft operating overhead.

    The southeastern-most point of the R-4403E boundary (where it intersects the Stennis International Airport Class D airspace boundary (at lat. 30°20′22″ N., long. 89°31′43″ W.) would be shifted northward by approximately 2.5 NM to intersect the Class D airspace area at lat. 30°22′35″ N., long. 89°32′06″ W. The airspace south of the new line would become a part of R-4403C.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 73 to remove restricted area R-4403, Gainesville, MS, and redesignate and expand the airspace to consist of five subareas: R-4403A, B, C, E and F, Stennis Space Center, MS. The FAA is proposing this action at the request of NASA and the NSWC to confine activities that potentially present hazards to nonparticipating aircraft. The existing airspace is too small to fully contain NASA activities and the proposed expansion would also enable NSWC to conduct realistic Special Operations Force training.

    R-4403A and B would continue be used for NASA activities, such as rocket engine testing and untethered space vehicle propulsion system testing. The NSWC would use the proposed R-4403C, E and F for integrated Special Operations Forces training. The proposed restricted areas are described below.

    R-4403A would be used by NASA to test rocket engine technology. It would consist of that airspace within a 2.5 NM radius of lat. 30°21′51″ N., long. 89°35′39″ W., centered on the rocket engine test complex. R-4403A would extend from the ground to 12,000 feet MSL. It would replace R-4403 with an expanded area to more fully contain rocket engine testing hazards. This area remains as proposed in the NPRM.

    R-4403B would be used by NASA for untethered autonomous space vehicle testing. The area would extend upward from the ground to 6,000 feet MSL. These vehicles are utilized to explore planets and asteroids. Testing of these vehicles involves potential hazards since failure of the vehicle, its propulsion system or propellant tanks can result in explosion of the vehicle. The propensity for this to occur is greater with these vehicles than with a standard aircraft because of the extremely volatile nature of the propellants and the poor aerodynamic characteristics of the vehicle during earth-based operation. Proposed R-4403B is designed to contain the flight profiles of these vehicles as well as any potential hazards to nonparticipating aircraft. Except for the slight adjustment of the southern boundary, as described above, this area remains as proposed in the NPRM.

    R-4403C would be used for Special Operations Forces Integration Training. The NPRM proposed R-4403C to extend from the ground to 6,000 feet MSL. This SNPRM would expand R-4403C to extend from the ground to 10,000 feet MSL, incorporating the airspace from 6,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL, which was formerly proposed as R-4403D. The designation “R-4403D” will no longer be used. R-4403C would contain air-to-ground live-fire training for AC-130 gunships, armed helicopters and tilt-rotor (CV-22) aircraft and surface-to-surface weapons firing. R-4403C would contain two impact areas for air-to-ground munitions employment (up to 105mm), and air-to-ground non-eye-safe laser firing. Ground forces would use lasers that are eye-safe to signal military aircraft operating overhead. Anticipated use of R-4403C is 100-120 days per year.

    R-4403D designation is removed from the proposal as described above.

    R-4403E would also be used for Special Operations Forces Integration Training. It would extend upward from the ground to 10,000 feet MSL. It would contain a ground target to be used only for air-to-ground firing of non-eye safe lasers. The proposal in the NPRM to use this area for air-to-ground munitions delivery is eliminated. Ground forces would also use lasers that are eye-safe to signal military aircraft operating overhead.

    R-4403F would extend upward from 4,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL. R-4403F would wrap around the northeast corner of R-4403E and would be used in conjunction with R-4403E.

    R-4403E and F would always be activated together for AC-130 air-to-ground firing of non-eye-safe lasers. The two areas could be activated separately from R-4403C, but typically would be used in conjunction with R-4403C.

    The proposed time of designation for R-4403A and R-4403B is “Intermittent, 1000 to 0300 local time, as activated by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance.” This time frame is the same as proposed in the NPRM. The proposed time of designation for R-4403C, E and F is “Intermittent, 2000 to 0500 local time, as activated by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance; and 1800 to 2000 local time, November 1 to March 1 (not to exceed 20 days per year).” The times for R-4403C, E and F are changed from those in the NPRM as explained in the “Differences from NPRM” section, above.

    Note: The term “Intermittent” is used to indicate occasional, irregular, or changeable use periods.

    During periods when the restricted areas are not needed by the using agencies, the airspace would be returned to the controlling agency for access by other airspace users.

    A revised color chart depicting the proposed restricted areas will be posted on the www.regulations.gov Web site (search Docket No. FAA-2014-0370).

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.

    Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

    PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 73.44 [Amended]
    2. Section 73.44 is amended as follows: R-4403 Gainesville, MS [Removed] R-4403A Stennis Space Center, MS [New]

    Boundaries. Within a 2.5-NM radius centered at lat. 30°21′51″ N., long. 89°35′39″ W.

    Designated altitudes. Surface to 12,000 feet MSL.

    Time of designation. Intermittent, 1000 to 0300 local time, as activated by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance.

    Controlling agency. FAA, Houston ARTCC.

    Using agency. NASA, Director, Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, MS.

    R-4403B Stennis Space Center, MS [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 30°29′37″ N., long. 89°35′16″ W.;

    to lat. 30°29′37″ N., long. 89°32′33″ W.; thence clockwise along a 0.85-NM arc centered

    at lat. 30°28′46″ N., long. 89°32′33″ W.;

    to lat. 30°28′46″ N., long. 89°31′34″ W.;

    to lat. 30°26′25″ N., long. 89°31′34″ W.;

    to lat. 30°24′02″ N., long. 89°31′34″ W.;

    thence counterclockwise along a 4.2-NM arc centered

    at lat. 30°22′04″ N., long. 89°27′17″ W.;

    to lat. 30°20′28″ N., long. 89°31′46″ W.;

    to lat. 30°19′19″ N., long. 89°35′32″ W.;

    to lat. 30°18′23″ N., long. 89°40′17″ W.;

    to lat. 30°21′08″ N., long. 89°42′25″ W.;

    to lat. 30°22′22″ N., long. 89°42′58″ W.;

    to lat. 30°23′44″ N., long. 89°42′43″ W.;

    to lat. 30°26′40″ N., long. 89°40′51″ W.;

    thence counterclockwise along a 3-NM arc centered

    at lat. 30°29′15″ N., long. 89°39′04″ W.;

    to lat. 30°27′08″ N., long. 89°36′37″ W.;

    to lat. 30°27′58″ N., long. 89°35′27″ W.;

    to lat. 30°28′47″ N., long. 89°35′27″ W.;

    to the point of beginning.

    Designated altitudes. Surface to 6,000 feet MSL.

    Time of designation. Intermittent, 1000 to 0300 local time, as activated by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance.

    Controlling agency. FAA, Houston ARTCC.

    Using agency. NASA, Director, Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, MS.

    R-4403C Stennis Space Center, MS [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 30°27′58″ N., long. 89°35′27″ W.;

    to lat. 30°22′35″ N., long. 89°35′27″ W.;

    to lat. 30°22′35″ N., long. 89°32′06″ W.;

    thence counterclockwise along a 4.2-NM arc centered

    at lat. 30°22′04″ N., long. 89°27′17″ W.;

    to lat. 30°20′28″ N., long. 89°31′46″ W.;

    to lat. 30°19′19″ N., long. 89°35′32″ W.;

    to lat. 30°18′23″ N., long. 89°40′17″ W.;

    to lat. 30°21′08″ N., long. 89°42′25″ W.;

    to lat. 30°22′22″ N., long. 89°42′58″ W.;

    to lat. 30°23′44″ N., long. 89°42′43″ W.;

    to lat. 30°26′40″ N., long. 89°40′51″ W.;

    thence counterclockwise along a 3-NM arc centered

    at lat. 30°29′15″ N., long. 89°39′04″ W.;

    to lat. 30°27′08″ N., long. 89°36′37″ W.;

    to the point of beginning.

    Designated altitudes. Surface to 10,000 feet MSL.

    Time of designation. Intermittent, 2000 to 0500 local time, as activated by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance; and 1800 to 2000 local time, November 1 to March 1, as activated by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance, not to exceed 20 days per year.

    Controlling agency. FAA, Houston ARTCC.

    Using agency. U.S. Navy, Commander, Naval Special Warfare Command, Naval Special Warfare N31 Branch, Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, MS.

    R-4403E Stennis Space Center, MS [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 30°29′37″ N., long. 89°35′16″ W.;

    to lat. 30°29′37″ N., long. 89°32′33″ W.;

    thence clockwise along a 0.85-M arc centered

    at lat. 30°28′46″ N., long. 89°32′33″ W.;

    to lat. 30°28′46″ N., long. 89°31′34″ W.;

    to lat. 30°26′25″ N., long. 89°31′34″ W.;

    to lat. 30°24′02″ N., long. 89°31′34″ W.;

    thence counterclockwise along a 4.2-NM arc centered

    at lat. 30°22′04″ N., long. 89°27′17″ W.;

    to lat. 30°22′35″ N., long. 89°32′06″ W.;

    to lat. 30°22′35″ N., long. 89°35′27″ W.;

    to lat. 30°27′58″ N., long. 89°35′27″ W,;

    to lat. 30°28′47″ N., long. 89°35′27″ W.;

    to the point of beginning.

    Designated altitudes. Surface to 10,000 feet MSL.

    Time of designation. Intermittent, 2000 to 0500 local time, as activated by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance; and 1800 to 2000 local time, November 1 to March 1, as activated by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance, not to exceed 20 days per year.

    Controlling agency. FAA, Houston ARTCC.

    Using agency. U.S. Navy, Commander, Naval Special Warfare Command, Naval Special Warfare N31 Branch, Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, MS.

    R-4403F Stennis Space Center, MS [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 30°29′37″ N., long. 89°35′16″ W.;

    thence clockwise along a 2.5-NM arc centered

    at lat. 30°28′46″ N., long. 89°32′33″ W.;

    to lat. 30°26′25″ N., long. 89°31′34″ W.;

    to lat. 30°28′46″ N., long. 89°31′34″ W.;

    thence counterclockwise along a 0.85-NM arc centered

    at lat. 30°28′46″ N., long. 89°32′33″ W.;

    to lat. 30°29′37″ N., long. 89°32′33″ W.;

    to the point of beginning.

    Designated altitudes. 4,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL.

    Time of designation. Intermittent, 2000 to 0500 local time, as activated by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance; and 1800 to 2000 local time, November 1 to March 1, as activated by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance, not to exceed 20 days per year.

    Controlling agency. FAA, Houston ARTCC.

    Using agency. U.S. Navy, Commander, Naval Special Warfare Command, Naval Special Warfare N31 Branch, Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, MS.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 10 2015. Gary A. Norek, Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20277 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3050 [Docket No. RM2015-16; Order No. 2654] Periodic Reporting AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports (Proposal Seven). This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: September 25, 2015. Reply Comments are due: October 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Summary of Proposal III. Initial Commission Action IV. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction

    On August 5, 2015, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to the Postal Service's periodic reports.1 Proposal Seven is attached to the Petition and proposes an analytical method change relating to the avoided costs for Flats Sequencing System (FSS) workshare discounts. Petition at 1.

    1 Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Seven), August 5, 2015 (Petition).

    This Petition was filed in response to Order No. 2472, which directed the Postal Service “to file a proposed methodology for determining the costs avoided for the Presorted FSS workshare discounts, as described in the body of [Order No. 2472], within 90 days of the date of [Order No. 2472].” 2

    2 Docket No. R2015-4, Order on Revised Price Adjustments for Standard Mail, Periodicals, and Package Services Products and Related Mail Classification Changes, May 7, 2015, at 62 (Order No. 2472).

    II. Summary of Proposal

    Under Proposal Seven, the Postal Service seeks to address the avoided costs relating to FSS mail. Petition, Proposal Seven at 1. The Postal Service bifurcates Proposal Seven into the Mail Processing and the Delivery elements of the avoided costs for FSS workshare discounts. Id.

    A. Section One: Proposed Method for Calculating Mail Processing Cost Avoidances

    The Postal Service seeks to modify the modeling methodology used in the USPS-FY14-11 (Docket No. ACR2014) Standard Mail Flats Mail Processing Cost Model to estimate the mail processing cost avoidances of FSS presorted Standard Flats. Petition, Proposal Seven, Section One at 1. The Postal Service expands the Standard Mail Flats Mail Processing Cost Model to identify the unique characteristics and flows of FSS-prepared Standard Flats. Id. As part of Library Reference USPS-RM2015-16/1 filed with the Petition, the Postal Service provides three models supporting this section of Proposal Seven. Id. The Postal Service also proposes changes to the USPS-FY14-11 (Docket No. ACR2014) Periodicals Flats Mail Processing Cost Model. Id. at 4.3

    3 The proposed changes to the Periodicals Flats Mail Processing Cost Model were filed in Docket No. RM2015-18. See Docket No. RM2015-18, Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Nine), August 5, 2015, Attachment at 2.

    There are nine modifications proposed by the Postal Service in Section One of Proposal Seven, all of which apply to the Standard Mail Flats Cost Model. Petition, Proposal Seven, Section One at 4. Two of the proposed modifications also apply to the Periodicals Model. Id.

    1. Revision of the Methodology Used To Estimate the Proportion of Flats Processed in Mechanized Incoming Secondary Operations (Modification One)

    The Postal Service presents a process to estimate the proportion of flat-shaped mail processed in mechanized incoming secondary operations. Id. at 4-8. Although over 98 percent of flats destinate in the service territories of plants that have mechanized equipment, certain facilities choose to perform the incoming secondary sortation manually for a variety of reasons, including low volume, service commitments, and operating window/capacity restraints. Id. at 4-5. The Postal Service asserts that its proposed methodology accounts for the two different technologies performing mechanized incoming secondary sortation—the Automated Flats Sorting Machine 100 (AFSM 100) and the FSS. Id. at 5. The Postal Service also represents that its methodology excludes letter shaped mail worked in flat operations, pieces entered in Carrier Route bundles that have broken and therefore require incoming secondary sortation, rejects from FSS operations, and pieces destinating in FSS zones that are not sorted on the FSS. See id. at 5-8. This modification applies to both the Standard Mail and Periodicals Flats Mail Processing Cost Models.

    2. Changes to Bundle Processing Flows To Account for Increased Mechanized Incoming Secondary Piece Processing

    The Postal Service proposes to adjust the bundle flow formulae for consistency with the mechanized incoming secondary piece distribution calculated under Modification One. See id. at 8-9. The Postal Service states that bundles for mechanized incoming secondary sortation will not incur an incoming secondary bundle sort. See id. The Postal Service explains that bundles for zones worked manually will incur an additional bundle sort at the delivery unit. Id. at 9. This modification applies to the Standard Mail Flats Mail Processing Cost Model.

    3. Introduction of FSS Bundle Flows

    The Postal Service assumes that no FSS bundles will incur a sortation at the delivery unit. Id. Aside from this assumption, the Postal Service calculates the bundle flows for FSS bundles using the same methodology used for other bundle types. Id. This modification applies to the Standard Mail Flats Mail Processing Cost Model.

    4. FSS Presort Piece Model and Costs

    The Postal Service states that FSS presorted pieces flow directly into piece sortation on the FSS, bypassing outgoing primary, outgoing secondary, managed mail, and incoming primary operations. Id. The Postal Service represents that it models such FSS presorted pieces using the same basic methodology previously used to model piece flows. Id. This modification applies to the Standard Mail Flats Mail Processing Cost Model.

    5. Updating 5-Digit Piece Model and Costs

    The Postal Service represents that 5-Digit pieces do not flow into FSS operations and proposes to update the 5-Digit piece model to reflect this flow. Id. at 10. The Postal Service represents that the relative incidence of manual incoming secondary sortation is higher for 5-Digit pieces by a factor of one over one minus the FSS coverage factor. Id. This modification applies to the Standard Mail Flats Mail Processing Cost Model.

    6. Updating Mixed ADC, ADC, 3-Digit for Incoming Secondary Coverage

    The Postal Service proposes to update the area distribution center (ADC), mixed ADC, and 3-Digit models to incorporate the recalculation of the mechanized incoming secondary sortation. Id. This modification applies to the Standard Mail Flats Mail Processing Cost Model.

    7. Explicit Modeling of Mail Preparation

    The Postal Service states that the current model includes the hours associated with mail preparation for the FSS in the calculation of the FSS productivities. See id. at 11. However, because such AFSM 100 preparation costs are included in the calculation of the AFSM 100 productivities, the Postal Service observes that a portion of the AFSM 100 preparation costs are allocated incorrectly to FSS prepared pieces through the Cost and Revenue Analysis (CRA) adjustment factor. See id. The Postal Service proposes to model AFSM 100 preparation costs using the methodology used in the Periodicals Flats Mail Processing Model. See id. This modification applies to the Standard Mail Flats Mail Processing Cost Model.

    8. CRA Adjustment Factor Adjusted for the FSS

    The Postal Service uses the CRA adjustment factor to calibrate the model to CRA costs and to distribute non-modeled costs to the appropriate rate category. Id. The Postal Service states that applying the CRA adjustment factor as is done in the current methodology would distort measured cost avoidances by overdistributing non-modeled costs to FSS pieces. Id. at 12. The Postal Service represents that it will calculate the CRA adjustment factor to ensure the non-modeled costs distributed to FSS pieces are equal to those distributed to Five-Digit pieces. Id. This modification applies to the Standard Mail Flats Mail Processing Cost Model.

    9. FSS Realization Factor

    The Postal Service represents that it introduced a FSS Realization Factor to measure the proportion of FSS eligible mail that is processed on the FSS. Id. at 12-13. According to the Postal Service, this FSS Realization Factor captures the fact that mail that destinates in a FSS zone and arrives after the end of first-pass processing may be processed on the AFSM 100 rather than the FSS to avoid delay. Id. This modification applies to both the Standard Mail and Periodicals Flats Mail Processing Cost Models.

    B. Section Two: Proposed Method for Calculating Delivery Costs

    The Postal Service proposes a method to disaggregate delivery costs for Periodicals Flats, Bound Printed Matter Flats, Standard Flats and Carrier Route Flats (not including High Density or Saturation) between those destinating in FSS zones and those destinating in non-FSS zones. Petition, Proposal Seven: Section Two at 1. This method uses operational assumptions and models rather than data directly collected from cost systems, and calculates separate delivery costs for the relevant products based on whether pieces are destinating in FSS or non-FSS zones. Id. at 3.

    The proposed computing method begins with a product's component group costs in three segments: Cost Segment 6, City Carrier In-Office Activities; Cost Segment 7, City Carrier Street Activities; and Cost Segment 10, Rural Carriers Office and Street Activities. Id. at 3-9. Within each cost segment, the purpose is to disaggregate costs into FSS zone costs and non-FSS zone costs. Id.

    III. Initial Commission Action

    The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2015-16 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. Additional information concerning the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's Web site at http://www.prc.gov. Interested persons may submit comments on the Petition and Proposal Seven no later than September 25, 2015. Reply comments are due no later than October 16, 2015. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Katalin K. Clendenin is designated as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.

    IV. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:

    1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2015-16 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Seven), filed August 5, 2015.

    2. Comments are due no later than September 25, 2015. Reply comments are due no later than October 16, 2015.

    3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Katalin K. Clendenin to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.

    4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Ruth Ann Abrams, Acting Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20232 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3050 [Docket No. RM2015-18; Order No. 2655] Periodic Reporting AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports (Proposal Nine). This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: September 8, 2015. Reply Comments are due: September 22, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Summary of Proposal III. Initial Commission Action IV. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction

    On August 5, 2015, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to the Postal Service's periodic reports.1 Proposal Nine is attached to the Petition and proposes an analytical method change relating to bottom-up costs for new Periodicals Mail Carrier Route bundle and container entry options. Petition at 1. This Petition was filed in response to Order No. 2472, which directed the Postal Service to “. . . file a proposed methodology for determining the bottom-up costs for the new Periodicals Mail Carrier Route bundle and container entry options, as described in the body of [Order No. 2472], within 90 days of the date of [Order No. 2472].” 2

    1 Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Nine), August 5, 2015 (Petition).

    2 Docket No. R2015-4, Order on Revised Price Adjustments for Standard Mail, Periodicals, and Package Services Products and Related Mail Classification Changes, May 7, 2015, at 63 (Order No. 2472).

    II. Summary of Proposal

    Under Proposal Nine, the Postal Service asserts that no changes to the methodology used to produce avoided cost estimates for Periodicals Mail Carrier Route bundle and container entry options is necessary and instead proposes changes to the model presentation that explicitly identify the bottom-up costs of processing Carrier Route pallets. Petition, Proposal Nine at 1, 2.

    When a mailing has sufficient density to prepare 5-Digit or 5-Digit Scheme pallets, the mailer presorts nearly all of the mail on the pallet into Carrier Route bundles. Id. at 1. The Postal Service represents that in Fiscal Year 2014, only one-half of one percent of the periodicals on such pallets were prepared in 5-Digit bundles. Id. The Postal Service states that the 5-Digit mail on these pallets generally consists of residual pieces for the few routes that lack sufficient density to qualify for Carrier Route rates. Id.

    The Postal Service represents that for this reason it processes Carrier Route pallets (5-Digit or 5-Digit Scheme pallets containing only Carrier Route bundles) identically to other 5-Digit pallets. Id. at 1-2. The Postal Service explains that all pallets are cross-docked to the delivery unit for distribution of bundles to carriers. Id. at 2. The Postal Service states that the Carrier Route pallet rate encourages mailers to prepare Carrier Route pallets and to move any residual 5-Digit bundles to containers that would be distributed in the plant. Id. The Postal Service represents this enables it to process the residual 5-Digit bundles on the Automated Flats Sorting Machine 100, rather than via manual processing. Id.

    According to the Postal Service, because the processing of Carrier Route pallets and other 5-Digit pallets does not differ, it proposes no changes to the methodology used to produce estimates of avoided costs. Id. The Postal Service represents that the changes it proposes to the USPS-FY14-11 Periodicals Model in Docket No. ACR2014 explicitly identify the costs avoided. Id. Further, the Postal Service states that it has incorporated Modifications 1 and 9, described in Section One of Proposal Seven,3 into the Periodicals Model filed with the Petition as an Excel spreadsheet. Id.

    3 Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Seven), August 5, 2015 (Proposal Seven).

    III. Initial Commission Action

    The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2015-18 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. Additional information concerning the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's Web site at http://www.prc.gov. Interested persons may submit comments on the Petition and Proposal Nine no later than September 8, 2015. Reply comments are due no later than September 22, 2015. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Lawrence Fenster is designated as officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.

    IV. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:

    1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2015-18 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Nine), filed August 5, 2015.

    2. Comments are due no later than September 8, 2015. Reply comments are due no later than September 22, 2015.

    3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Lawrence Fenster to serve as officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.

    4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Ruth Ann Abrams, Acting Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20233 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0117; FRL-9931-11-Region 6] Determination of Attainment; Texas; Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1997 Ozone Nonattainment Area; Determination of Attainment of the 1997 Ozone Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine that the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is currently attaining the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This determination is based upon certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area has monitored attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the 2012-2014 monitoring period and continues to monitor attainment of the NAAQS based on preliminary 2015 data. If this proposed determination is made final, the requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration, a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, and other State Implementation Plan (SIP) documents related to attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS shall be suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS. This proposed action is consistent with EPA's interpretation of certain requirements of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0117, by one of the following methods:

    www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.

    Email: Ms. Wendy Jacques at [email protected]

    Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0117. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit electronically any information that you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI). Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional information on submitting comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Wendy Jacques, (214) 665-7395, [email protected] To inspect the hard copy materials, please contact Ms. Jacques or Mr. Bill Deese at (214) 665-7253.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” means EPA.

    I. Background

    Section 109 of the Act requires the EPA to establish a NAAQS for pollutants that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare” and to develop a primary and secondary standard for each NAAQS. The primary standard is designed to protect human health with an adequate margin of safety and the secondary standard is designed to protect public welfare and the environment. The EPA has set NAAQS for six common air pollutants, referred to as criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. These standards present state and local governments with the minimum air quality levels they must meet to comply with the Act. Also, these standards provide information to residents of the United States about the air quality in their communities.

    Ozone is a gas composed of three oxygen atoms. Ground-level ozone is generally not emitted directly from a vehicle's exhaust or an industrial smokestack, but is created by a chemical reaction between volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of sunlight.1 Ozone is known primarily as a summertime air pollutant. Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, chemical solvents and natural sources emit NOX and VOCs. Urban areas tend to have high concentrations of ground-level ozone, but areas without significant industrial activity and with relatively low vehicular traffic are also subject to increased ozone levels because wind carries ozone and its precursors hundreds of miles from their sources.2

    1 VOC and NOX are often referred to as “precursors” to ozone formation.

    2 For additional information on ozone, please visit www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone.

    On July 18, 1997, the EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 parts per million (ppm), known as the 1997 ozone standard. See 62 FR 38856 and 40 CFR 50.10. Under the EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the 1997 ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm.

    On April 30, 2004, the EPA designated and classified the 8-county HGB area (consisting of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller counties) as a Moderate nonattainment area under the 1997 ozone standard with an attainment date of no later than June 15, 2010 (see 69 FR 23858 and 69 FR 23951). On June 15, 2007, we received a request from the Governor of Texas seeking voluntary reclassification of the HGB area from a Moderate nonattainment area to a Severe nonattainment area under the 1997 ozone standard, which we approved on October 1, 2008 (73 FR 56983).3 Subsequently, the State submitted the Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and Attainment Demonstration (AD) SIPs for the HGB Severe area under the 1997 ozone standard. These RFP and AD SIPs were approved on January 2, 2014 (see 79 FR 51 and 79 FR 57, respectively).

    3 The attainment date for the HGB Severe nonattainment area is as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than June 15, 2019.

    On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), the EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm (the 2008 ozone standard). On April 30, 2012, the EPA promulgated designations under the 2008 ozone standard (77 FR 30088) and in that action the EPA designated the 8-county HGB area as a Marginal ozone nonattainment area.4 The rule to implement the 2008 ozone standard was finalized on March 6, 2014 (see 80 FR 12264) and in that action the EPA revised the Clean Data Policy 5 to include the 2008 ozone NAAQS and any prior ozone NAAQS. That is, upon a determination by the EPA that an area designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or for any prior ozone NAAQS, has attained the relevant standard, the requirements for such area to submit attainment demonstrations and associated RFP plans, contingency measures for failure to attain or make reasonable progress and other planning SIPs required under section 182 of the Act related to attainment-of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or for any prior NAAQS for which the determination has been made, shall be suspended until such time as: (1) The area is redesignated to attainment for that NAAQS or a redesignation substitute is approved as appropriate, at which time the requirements no longer apply; or (2) the EPA determines that the area has violated that NAAQS, at which time the area is again required to submit such plans. See 80 FR 12264, 12317 and 40 CFR 51.1118.

    4 The EPA's actions herein do not address the HGB nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone standard.

    5 The EPA initially issued the Clean Data Policy in 1995, “RFP, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995. For purposes of the 1997 ozone standard, we codified that policy at 40 CFR 51.918. This codified policy was upheld by the D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. 2009). The policy memo is in the docket for this rulemaking.

    If the EPA's determination that the HGB area is currently attaining the 1997 ozone standard is finalized, 40 CFR 51.1118 provides that the requirements for the TCEQ to submit certain RFP plans, attainment demonstrations, contingency measures and any other attainment planning requirements of the CAA related to attainment of that standard in the HGB area shall be suspended for as long as the area continues to attain the standard. This action is known as a Clean Data Determination or CDD. However, a CDD does not constitute a redesignation to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act, and if the EPA determines that the area subsequently violates the standard, that suspension of the requirement to submit the attainment planning SIP provisions is lifted, and those requirements are once again due. Even though the EPA has finalized revocation of the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS, under 40 CFR 51.1118, an area remains subject to the obligations for a revoked NAAQS until either (i) the area is redesignated to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS; or (ii) the EPA approves a demonstration for the area in a redesignation substitute procedure for a revoked NAAQS per the provisions of § 51.1105(b). Under this redesignation substitute procedure for a revoked NAAQS, and for this limited anti-backsliding purpose, the demonstration must show that the area has attained that revoked NAAQS due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions and that the area will maintain that revoked NAAQS for 10 years from the date of the EPA's approval of this showing. We also note that the CDD does not constitute a Determination of Attainment by an Area's Attainment Date under sections 179(c) and 181(b)(2) of the Act.

    II. The EPA's Evaluation of the HGB Data

    For ozone, an area is considered to be attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. Under the EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 1997 ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at an ozone monitor is less than or equal to 0.08 parts per million (ppm), (i.e., 0.084 ppm, when rounding, based on the truncating conventions in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I). This 3-year average is referred to as the design value. When the design value is less than or equal to 0.084 ppm at each monitor within the area, then the area is meeting the NAAQS. Also, the data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than or equal to 90%, and no single year has less than 75% data completeness as determined in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment. For ease of communication, many reports of ozone concentrations are given in parts per billion (ppb); ppb = ppm × 1,000. Thus, 0.084 ppm equals 84 ppb.

    The EPA reviewed the HGB area ozone monitoring data from ambient ozone monitoring stations for 2012-2014 and through July 2015. The 2012-2014 data for all the ozone monitors in the HGB area have been quality assured and certified by the EPA. The design value for 2012-2014 is 80 ppb. At the time of this writing, the preliminary ozone data for 2015 are posted on the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Web site and in AQS.6 The data for 2012-2014, and preliminary data for 2015, show that the HGB area is attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

    6 See http://www.tceq.texas.gov/agency/data/ozone_data.html. Preliminary data for the first quarter of 2015 are posted in AQS and are provided in the docket for this rulemaking.

    Table 1 shows the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations for the HGB nonattainment area monitors for the years 2012-2014. (To find the overall design value for the area for a given year, simply find the highest design value from any of the 20 monitors for that year.)

    Table 1—The HGB Area Fourth High 8-Hour Ozone Average Concentrations and Design Values (ppm) for 2012-2014 1 Site name and AQS No. 4th Highest daily max 2012 2013 2014 Design value (2012-2014) Seabrook Friendship Park, 482011050 0.086 0.067 0.065 0.072 Houston Westhollow, 482010066 0.081 0.077 0.070 0.076 Houston Deer Park #2, 482011039 0.085 0.069 0.063 0.072 Houston North Wayside, 482010046 0.075 0.070 0.062 0.069 Houston Monroe, 482010062 0.085 0.074 0.065 0.074 Conroe Relocated, 483390078 0.082 0.075 0.072 0.076 Houston East, 482011034 0.083 0.069 0.066 0.072 Channelview, 482010026 0.077 0.061 0.064 0.067 Lake Jackson, 480391016 0.071 0.067 0.061 0.066 Baytown Garth, 482011017 0.071 0.061 0.067 0.066 Park Place, 482010416 0.077 0.079 0.066 0.074 Houston Croquet, 482010051 0.079 0.079 0.067 0.075 Houston Aldine, 482010024 0.075 0.074 0.068 0.072 Houston Bayland Park, 482010055 0.077 0.081 0.067 0.075 Clinton, 482011035 0.081 0.067 0.058 0.068 Northwest Harris County, 482010029 0.082 0.080 0.063 0.075 Manvel Croix Park, 480391004 0.087 0.084 0.071 0.080 Lang, 482010047 0.081 0.079 0.064 0.074 Galveston 99th Street, 481671034 0.081 0.064 0.071 0.072 Lynchburg Ferry, 482011015 0.075 0.064 0.059 0.066 1 These ozone monitors have remained in the same location for the duration of the monitoring period from 2012 to 2014. The TCEQ Web site includes monitoring data for the Texas Avenue site, but Table 1 here does not. Data from the Texas Avenue site is excluded because the site does not meet siting criteria required by 40 CFR part 58 Appendix E. The TCEQ has requested NAAQS exclusion for the pollutants monitored at this site since 2002. The TCEQ ozone monitors and data are posted at https://www.tceq.texas.gov/cgi-bin/compliance/monops/8hr_attainment.pl.

    As shown in Table 1, the 8-hour ozone design value for 2012-2014, which is based on a three-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum average ozone concentration at the monitor recording the highest concentrations, is 80 ppb, which meets the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Data for 2015 not yet certified also indicate that the area continues to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS. In addition, ozone data for 2015 that are available in the EPA AQS database show this area continues to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The AQS data reports for the HGB area for the three years 2012 through 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 are included in the docket for this rulemaking.

    III. Proposed Action

    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.1118, the EPA is proposing to determine that the HGB 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is currently attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS. This determination is based upon certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area has monitored attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the 2012-2014 monitoring period and continues to monitor attainment of the NAAQS based on preliminary 2015 data. Thus the requirements for such area to submit attainment demonstrations and associated reasonably available control measures, RFP plans, contingency measures for failure to attain or make reasonable progress and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS shall be suspended until such time as: (1) The area is redesignated to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS or a redesignation substitute is approved as appropriate, at which time the requirements no longer apply; or (2) the EPA determines that the area has violated the 1997 ozone NAAQS, at which time the area is again required to submit such plans. This proposal is consistent with our interpretation of certain requirements of part D of title I of the Act.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a determination of attainment based on air quality, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements, and it would not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it merely makes a determination based on air quality data. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20026 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0534; FRL-9932-45-Region 9] Withdrawal of Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; Contingency Measures for the 1997 PM2.5 Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is proposing to withdraw a May 22, 2014 final action approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of California under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to address contingency measure requirements for the 1997 annual and 24-hour national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the San Joaquin Valley. Simultaneously, EPA is proposing to disapprove this SIP submission. These proposed actions are in response to a decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015)) remanding EPA's approval of a related SIP submission and rejecting EPA's rationale for approving plan submissions that rely on California mobile source control measures to meet SIP requirements such as contingency measures, which was a necessary basis for the May 22, 2014 final rule.

    DATES:

    Any comments must arrive by September 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0534, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.

    Email: [email protected]v.

    Mail or delivery: Doris Lo, (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comments due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials in person, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Lo, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), (415) 972-3959, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

    Table of Contents I. Background II. Proposed Action and Clean Air Act Consequences III. Request for Public Comment IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    On July 18, 1997, EPA established new national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (µm) in diameter (PM2.5), including an annual standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations and a 24-hour (daily) standard of 65 µg/m3 based on a 3-year average of 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations.1 Effective April 5, 2005, EPA designated the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) area in California as nonattainment for the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.2 The SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area is located in the southern half of California's central valley and includes all or part of eight counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and the valley portion of Kern.3 The local air district with primary responsibility for developing state implementation plans (SIPs) to attain the NAAQS in this area is the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or District).

    1 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997) and 40 CFR 50.7. Effective December 18, 2006, EPA strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the level to 35 µg/m3. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006) and 40 CFR 50.13. Effective March 18, 2013, EPA strengthened the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS by lowering the level to 12 µg/m3. 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013) and 40 CFR 50.18. In this preamble, all references to the PM2.5 NAAQS, unless otherwise specified, are to the 1997 24-hour standard (65 µg/m3) and annual standard (15.0 µg/m3) as codified in 40 CFR 50.7.

    2 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005), codified at 40 CFR 81.305.

    3 For a precise description of the geographic boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.

    Between 2007 and 2011, California made six SIP submittals to address nonattainment area planning requirements for the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.4 We refer to these submittals collectively as the “2008 PM2.5 Plan.” On November 9, 2011, EPA approved all elements of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan except for the contingency measures, which EPA disapproved for failure to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9).5 On July 3, 2013, the State made a new submission to meet the contingency measure requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV (2013 Contingency Measure Submittal) to correct the deficiencies identified in EPA's November 2011 action disapproving the contingency measure element of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.6

    4 76 FR 69896 at n. 2 (November 9, 2011) (final action on 2008 PM2.5 Plan).

    5Id. at 69924.

    6 78 FR 53113, 53115-53116 (August 28, 2013) (proposed action on Contingency Measure SIP).

    On May 22, 2014, EPA fully approved the 2013 Contingency Measure Submittal based on the Agency's conclusion that this SIP submittal corrected then outstanding deficiencies in the CAA section 172(c)(9) contingency measures for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.7 Among other things, the 2013 Contingency Measure Submittal relied on the ongoing implementation of California's mobile source control program as a basis for satisfying the contingency measure requirements in CAA section 172(c)(9). Specifically, the 2013 Contingency Measure Submittal relied on California mobile source measures to achieve 21 tons per day (tpd) of reductions in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) in 2015, roughly two-thirds of the total amount of NOX emission reductions (31.6 tpd) necessary to achieve one year's worth of reasonable further progress (RFP) in the SJV.8 In its May 22, 2014 final action on the 2013 Contingency Measure Submittal, EPA determined that CARB's continuing implementation of these mobile source control measures in 2015, together with other fully-adopted measures implemented by the District in the same timeframe, would provide for an appropriate level of continued emission reduction progress should the SJV area fail to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, which was April 5, 2015, thereby meeting the requirement for contingency measures for failure to attain.9 With respect to the requirement for contingency measures for failure to meet RFP requirements, EPA determined that this requirement was moot because the District had already met the RFP requirements relevant to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan by the time of EPA's May 22, 2014 action.10

    7 79 FR 29327 (May 22, 2014) (final action on Contingency Measure SIP).

    8 78 FR 53113, 53123 (August 28, 2013) and 79 FR 29327, 29336-29337 (May 22, 2014).

    9 78 FR 53113, 53123 and 79 FR 29327, 29350.

    10 79 FR 29327, 29350.

    Several environmental and community organizations filed a petition for review of EPA's November 9, 2011 action on the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, arguing, among other things, that the 2008 PM2.5 Plan had calculated the necessary emission reductions and forecasts in part based on state-adopted mobile source measures that are not themselves incorporated into the federally enforceable plan, in violation of the CAA.11 At that time, EPA's longstanding and consistent practice had been to allow California SIPs to rely on emission reduction credit for state mobile source rules waived or authorized by EPA under section 209 of the Act (“waiver measures”) to meet certain SIP requirements without requiring approval of those control measures into the SIP under section 110 of the Act. On May 20, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the petition with respect to this issue, holding that EPA violated the CAA by approving the 2008 PM2.5 Plan even though the plan did not include the waiver measures on which the plan relied to achieve its emission reduction goals. Committee for a Better Arvin, et al. v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015) (CBA) (partially granting and partially denying petition for review). The court rejected EPA's arguments supporting the Agency's longstanding practice, finding that section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act plainly mandates that all control measures on which states rely to attain the NAAQS must be “included” in the SIP and subject to enforcement by EPA and citizens. The court remanded EPA's November 9, 2011 action for further proceedings consistent with the decision.

    11Committee for a Better Arvin et al. v. EPA, Case No. 11-73924 (9th Cir.).

    Separately, environmental and community organizations also filed a petition for review of EPA's May 22, 2014 action on the 2013 Contingency Measure Submittal, arguing, among other things, that EPA violated the CAA by approving that submittal even though it did not include the waiver measures on which it relied to achieve the necessary emission reductions to meet contingency measure requirements.12 On June 10, 2015, EPA filed an unopposed motion for voluntary remand of the May 22, 2014 final rule without vacatur based, inter alia, on the Agency's substantial and legitimate need to reexamine this rulemaking in light of the Ninth Circuit's May 20, 2015 decision in CBA. 13 As explained in EPA's motion, the 2013 Contingency Measure Submittal that EPA approved in the May 22, 2014 rulemaking relied upon waiver measures to achieve a significant percentage of the emission reductions necessary to comply with the statutory requirement for contingency measures, and these waiver measures are not included in the SIP.14 EPA moved the court for an order remanding the May 22, 2014 final rule to allow the Agency to reconsider it in light of the CBA decision.15 On June 15, 2015, the Ninth Circuit granted EPA's motion and remanded the petition for review to EPA.16

    12Medical Advocates for Healthy Air et al. v. EPA, Case No. 14-72219 (9th Cir.).

    13Medical Advocates for Healthy Air et al. v. EPA, Case No. 14-72219 (9th Cir.), United States Unopposed Motion for Voluntary Remand of the Rule at Issue Without Vacatur, Docket Entry 29-1.

    14Id.

    15Id.

    16Medical Advocates for Healthy Air et al. v. EPA, Case No. 14-72219 (9th Cir.), Order, Docket Entry 30.

    II. Proposed Action and Clean Air Act Consequences

    As noted above, the Ninth Circuit rejected EPA's prior interpretation of the CAA under which EPA had allowed California SIPs to rely on waiver measures without requiring approval of those measures into the SIP in accordance with section 110 of the Act. This interpretation formed a necessary basis for EPA's approval of the 2013 Contingency Measure Submittal.17 In response to the court's ruling in CBA, we are proposing to withdraw our May 22, 2014 approval of the 2013 Contingency Measure Submittal (79 FR 29327) because it was predicated on an interpretation of the CAA that has been rejected by the Ninth Circuit. For the same reason, we are proposing to disapprove the 2013 Contingency Measure Submittal for failure to satisfy the requirements of the Act. This proposed withdrawal and disapproval, if finalized, would have the effect of removing the 2013 Contingency Measure Submittal from the applicable California SIP and deleting the provisions in 40 CFR 52.220(c) where EPA's approval of the SIP submittal is currently codified.18

    17 79 FR 29327, 29336-37 (May 22, 2014).

    18See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(438)(ii).

    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a SIP submittal that addresses a requirement of part D, title I of the Act or is required in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a mandatory sanctions clock. Disapproval of a SIP element also triggers the requirement under CAA section 110(c) for EPA to promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years from the date of the disapproval unless the State corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or plan revision, before the Administrator promulgates such FIP.

    EPA is proposing to determine that this disapproval of the 2013 Contingency Measure Submittal does not start a mandatory sanctions clock or FIP clock because the specific type of contingency measure at issue in that submittal is no longer a required attainment plan element under the facts and circumstances of this situation. CARB submitted the 2013 Contingency Measure Submittal to address the contingency measure requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9) as applied to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, which provided for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by April 5, 2015, the latest permissible attainment date for this area under subpart 1 of part D, title I of the Act.19 Thus, CARB intended the specific measures to be contingency measures that would apply in the event of a failure to attain by April 5, 2015. However, intervening events have affected the applicable requirements for contingency measures for this area. A January 2013 decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013)) held that EPA must implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with the requirements of subpart 4 of Part D, title I of the Act. In order to address the requirements of subpart 4, EPA promulgated a rulemaking to classify all existing PM2.5 nonattainment areas, including SJV, as “Moderate” nonattainment areas and to provide additional time for states to make or supplement SIP submissions in order to meet the requirements of subpart 4.20 On April 7, 2015, EPA determined that the SJV area could not attain by the applicable attainment date (i.e., April 5, 2015) and therefore reclassified the area from “Moderate” to “Serious.” As a consequence of the SJV area's reclassification as a Serious area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, California is now required to submit a Serious area plan, including both a demonstration that the plan provides for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV by the Serious area attainment date, which is December 31, 2015, and contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to make RFP or to attain by that date.21 Another consequence of this reclassification, however, is that the specific requirement for contingency measures for failure to attain as a Moderate area plan requirement was superseded and eliminated.22 Thus, the specific contingency measures at issue in the 2013 Contingency Measure Submittal are no longer required and disapproval of those specific measures should not be a basis for sanctions or a FIP under these facts and circumstances.

    19 80 FR 1482, 1483 at n. 10 (January 12, 2015) (proposed rule to reclassify SJV as Serious nonattainment for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS).

    20 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014).

    21 80 FR 18528 (April 7, 2015). California has requested an extension of the Serious area attainment date pursuant to CAA section 188(e), and EPA is currently evaluating that request. See letter dated June 25, 2015, from Richard Corey, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, transmitting “2015 Plan for the PM2.5 Standard.”

    22 EPA does not interpret the requirement for failure-to-attain contingency measures to apply to Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas that cannot practicably attain the NAAQS by the statutory attainment date. Rather, EPA believes it is appropriate for the state to identify and adopt attainment contingency measures as part of the Serious area attainment plan that it will develop once EPA reclassifies the area. See 59 FR 41998, 42015 (August 16, 1994).

    Our proposed disapproval of the 2013 Contingency Measure Submittal, if finalized, would not trigger sanctions or FIP clocks because the contingency measure requirement that this SIP submittal addressed has been superseded by different planning obligations under subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act. That is, because the State submitted the 2013 Contingency Measure Submittal to address a contingency measure requirement for failure to attain by a statutory attainment date that no longer applies to the area (April 5, 2015), this SIP submittal no longer addresses an applicable requirement of part D, title I of the Act, and our disapproval of it therefore would not trigger sanctions. For the same reason, our disapproval of the 2013 Contingency Measure Submittal would not create any deficiency in a mandatory component of the SIP for this area and, therefore, would not trigger the obligation for EPA to promulgate a FIP under section 110(c) to address this issue.

    III. Request for Public Comment

    We will accept comments from the public on these proposals for the next 30 days. The deadline and instructions for submission of comments are provided in the “Date” and “Addresses” sections at the beginning of this preamble.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq., because this proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens but simply disapproves certain State requirements submitted for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but simply disapproves certain State requirements submitted for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that the Clean Air Act prescribes that various consequences (e.g., higher offset requirements) may or will result from disapproval actions does not mean that EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for this action. Therefore, this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.” EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

    E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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 action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

    F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP EPA is proposing to disapprove would not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but simply disapproves certain State requirements submitted for inclusion into the SIP.

    H. Executive Order 13211, Actions 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 it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur oxides, Particulate matter.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 6, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, Region 9.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20240 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 80 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0208; FRL-9931-95-OAR] RIN 2060-AS64 Relaxation of the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure Gasoline Volatility Standard for Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties, North Carolina AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a request from the state of North Carolina for the EPA to relax the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standard applicable to gasoline introduced into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year for Mecklenburg and Gaston counties, North Carolina. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to amend the regulations to allow the RVP standard for Mecklenburg and Gaston counties to rise from 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) to 9.0 psi for gasoline. The EPA has preliminarily determined that this change to the federal RVP regulation is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before September 16, 2015 unless a public hearing is requested by September 1, 2015. If the EPA receives such a request, we will publish information related to the timing and location of the hearing and a new deadline for public comment.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0208, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. If you need to include CBI as part of your comment, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html for instructions. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make.

    The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patty Klavon, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4476; fax number: (734) 214-4052; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The contents of this preamble are listed in the following outline:

    I. General Information II. Public Participation III. Background and Proposal IV. Direct Final Rule V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews VI. Legal Authority I. General Information A. This Proposed Rule Is Published Parallel to a Direct Final Rule

    In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, the EPA is making this revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the EPA views this revision as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comment. The rationale for this rulemaking is described both in this proposal and in the direct final rule.

    The regulatory text for this proposed rule is included in the direct final rule, and parties should review that rule for the regulatory text. If the EPA receives no adverse comment, the EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule. If the EPA receives adverse comment on this rule or any portion of this rule, the EPA will withdraw the direct final rule or the portion of the rule that received adverse comment. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rulemaking. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

    B. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this proposed rule are fuel producers and distributors who do business in North Carolina.

    Examples of potentially
  • regulated entities
  • NAICS 1 codes
    Petroleum refineries 324110 Gasoline Marketers and Distributors 424710
  • 424720
  • Gasoline Retail Stations 447110 Gasoline Transporters 484220
  • 484230
  • 1 North American Industry Classification System.

    The above table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. The table lists the types of entities of which the EPA is aware that potentially could be affected by this proposed rule. Other types of entities not listed on the table could also be affected. To determine whether your organization could be affected by this proposed rule, you should carefully examine the regulations in 40 CFR 80.27. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

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

    The statutory authority for this action is granted to the EPA by Sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).

    II. Public Participation

    The EPA will not hold a public hearing on this matter unless a request is received by the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble by September 1, 2015. If the EPA receives such a request, we will publish information related to the timing and location of the hearing and a new deadline for public comment.

    III. Background and Proposal A. Summary of the Proposal

    The EPA is proposing to approve a request from the state of North Carolina to change the summertime RVP standard for Mecklenburg and Gaston counties, North Carolina from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi by amending the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). In a previous rulemaking, the EPA approved a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, North Carolina 2008 ozone area (“the Charlotte area”) and a CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration that relaxing the federal RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold from June 1 to September 15 of each year in Mecklenburg and Gaston counties would not interfere with maintenance of any NAAQS in the Charlotte area, including the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or with any other applicable CAA requirement. Mecklenburg and Gaston counties are part of the Charlotte area. For more information on North Carolina's redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Charlotte area, please refer to Docket ID. No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0275 for the rulemaking that was signed on July 17, 2015.

    The preamble for this rulemaking is organized as follows: Section III.B. provides the history of the federal gasoline volatility regulation. Section III.C. describes the policy regarding relaxation of gasoline volatility standards in ozone nonattainment areas that are redesignated as attainment areas. Section III.D. provides information specific to North Carolina's request for Mecklenburg and Gaston counties. Finally, Section IV. briefly discusses the associated direct final rule.

    B. History of the Gasoline Volatility Requirement

    On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), the EPA determined that gasoline nationwide was becoming increasingly volatile, causing an increase in evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment. Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOC), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to ground-level ozone can reduce lung function, thereby aggravating asthma and other respiratory conditions, increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.

    The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under CAA section 211(c), the EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868) that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the regulatory control periods that were established on a state-by-state basis in the final rule. The regulatory control periods addressed the portion of the year when peak ozone concentrations were expected. These regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of gasoline during the high ozone season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), the EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the volatility control program. These requirements established maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the state, the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.)

    The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section 211(h) to address fuel volatility. CAA section 211(h) requires the EPA to promulgate regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone season. CAA section 211(h) also prohibits the EPA from establishing a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that the EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.

    On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), the EPA modified the Phase II volatility regulations to be consistent with CAA section 211(h). The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, effective January 13, 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), which included the 7.8 psi ozone season limitation for certain areas. As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility controls and reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility standards published in 1991, the EPA will rely on states to initiate changes to their respective volatility programs. The EPA's policy for approving such changes is described below in Section III.C.

    The state of North Carolina has initiated this change by requesting that the EPA relax the 7.8 psi gasoline RVP standard to 9.0 psi for Mecklenburg and Gaston counties, which are subject to the 7.8 gasoline RVP requirement during the summertime ozone season. Accordingly, the state of North Carolina provided a technical demonstration showing that relaxing the federal gasoline RVP requirements in the two counties from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi would not interfere with maintenance of any NAAQS in the Charlotte area, including the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or with any other applicable CAA requirement.

    C. The EPA's Policy Regarding Relaxation of Gasoline Volatility Standards in Ozone Nonattainment Areas That Are Redesignated to Attainment Areas

    As stated in the preamble for the EPA's amended Phase II volatility standards (56 FR 64706), any change in the gasoline volatility standard for a nonattainment area that was subsequently redesignated as an attainment area must be accomplished through a separate rulemaking that revises the applicable standard for that area. Thus, for former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas where the EPA mandated a Phase II volatility standard of 7.8 psi RVP in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, the federal 7.8 psi gasoline RVP requirement remains in effect, even after such an area is redesignated to attainment, until a separate rulemaking is completed that relaxes the federal gasoline RVP standard in that area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.

    As explained in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, the EPA believes that relaxation of an applicable gasoline RVP standard is best accomplished in conjunction with the redesignation process. In order for an ozone nonattainment area to be redesignated as an attainment area, CAA section 107(d)(3) requires the state to make a showing, pursuant to CAA section 175A, that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for the ozone NAAQS for ten years. Depending on the area's circumstances, this maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for ten years without the more stringent volatility standard or that the more stringent volatility standard may be necessary for the area to maintain its attainment with the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request for redesignation, the EPA will not relax the gasoline volatility standard unless the state requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates to the satisfaction of the EPA that the area will maintain attainment for ten years without the need for the more stringent volatility standard.

    North Carolina is requesting relaxation of the federal gasoline RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for Mecklenburg and Gaston counties concurrent with its request that the EPA approve a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Charlotte area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    D. North Carolina's Request To Relax the Federal Gasoline RVP Requirement for Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties

    On March 11, 2015, the state of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), submitted a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Charlotte area, which was classified as Marginal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Mecklenburg and Gaston counties are part of the Charlotte area. Additionally, the state submitted a CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration that removal of the federal RVP requirement of 7.8 psi for gasoline during the summertime ozone season in Mecklenburg and Gaston counties would not interfere with maintenance of any NAAQS, or with any other applicable CAA requirement. Specifically, the state provided a technical demonstration showing that relaxing the federal gasoline RVP requirement in the two counties from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi would not interfere with maintenance of any NAAQS in the Charlotte area, of which the two counties are part, including the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or with any other applicable CAA requirement.

    In a rulemaking that was signed on July 17, 2015, the EPA evaluated and approved North Carolina's March 11, 2015 redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Charlotte area. See Docket ID. No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0275. In a separate rulemaking signed on July 17, 2015, the EPA approved North Carolina's non-interference demonstration for Mecklenburg and Gaston counties. See Docket ID. No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0260.1

    1 On March 11, 2015, the NCDENR requested that the EPA parallel process the approval of the submission.

    Both rulemakings were subject to public notice-and-comment. The EPA received two comments on the redesignation request and maintenance plan rulemaking, and those comments were addressed in the final rule for that rulemaking. The comments received can be found in the docket for that rulemaking (Docket ID. No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0275). No comments were received on the non-interference demonstration for Mecklenburg and Gaston counties (Docket ID. No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0260).

    In this action, the EPA is taking the second and final step in the process by proposing to approve North Carolina's request to relax the summertime ozone season gasoline RVP standard for Mecklenburg and Gaston counties from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to amend the applicable gasoline RVP standard to allow the gasoline RVP requirements to rise from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi provided at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2) for the two counties. This proposal to approve North Carolina's request to relax the summertime ozone season gasoline RVP standard for Mecklenburg and Gaston counties from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi is based on the previous approval of North Carolina's March 11, 2015 redesignation request and maintenance plan and non-interference demonstration. It is also based on the fact that the Charlotte area is currently in attainment for the both the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    IV. Direct Final Rule

    A direct final rule that would make the same changes as those proposed in this action appears in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register. The EPA is taking direct final action on these revisions because the EPA views the revisions as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comment. The EPA has explained the reasons for the amendments in this proposal and in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received, no further action will be taken on the proposal, and the direct final rule will become effective as provided in that action.

    If the EPA receives adverse comments on the rule or any portion of the rule, the EPA will withdraw the direct final rule or the portion of the rule that received adverse comment. The EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which provisions are being withdrawn. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the subsequent final action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

    The changes to the regulatory text proposed in this document are identical to those for the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register. For further information, including the regulatory revisions, see the direct final rule published in a separate part of this Federal Register.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    For a complete discussion of all the administrative requirements applicable to this action, see the direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register.

    VI. Legal Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is granted to the EPA by Sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 5, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20245 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 219 [Docket No. 150413360-5701-03] RIN 0648-BF02 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Research; Correction AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; correction; extension of public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains corrections to the preamble to the proposed rule published on August 6, 2015, that would establish a framework for authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to the NEFSC's fisheries research activities in the Atlantic coast region for a five-year period, 2015-2020. This action is necessary to correct typographical errors in the annual estimates presented for Level B harassment of northern bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus) from 10 to 12. This change accounts for the annual estimate of level B harassment for this species in both inshore (10 individuals) and offshore waters (2 individuals) in the Atlantic coast region.

    The Federal Register proposed rule published on July 9, 2015, indicated that written comments were due by August 10, 2015, which allowed 30 calendar days for public input. On August 6, 2015, NMFS published a correction and extended the public comment period to August 17, 2015. NMFS has decided to extend the public comment period by an additional 30 calendar days for public input.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the proposed rule published July 9, 2015, at 80 FR 39542, extended August 6, 2015, at 80 FR 46939, has been further extended. NMFS must receive written comments and information no later than September 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0078, by any of the following methods:

    • Electronic submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov, enter 0648-BF02 in the “Search” box, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    • Mail: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF file formats only. To help NMFS process and review comments more efficiently, please use only one method to submit comments. All comments received are a part of the public record. NMFS will generally post the comments on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeannine Cody, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    NMFS published a proposed rule on July 9, 2015 (80 FR 39542) to establish a framework for authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to the NEFSC's fisheries research activities in the Atlantic coast region for a five-year period, 2015-2020. NMFS refers the reader to the July 9, 2015, Federal Register notice (80 FR 39542) for background information concerning the proposed regulations. The information presented in the notice of proposed rulemaking is not repeated here. NMFS also published a correction to the proposed rule on August 6, 2015 (80 FR 46939). This correction revises the description contained in the preamble of the estimates of northern bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus) to be taken by Level B harassment from 10 to 12. This correction presents the total annual estimate of level B harassment for this species in both inshore (10) and offshore waters (2) in the Atlantic coast region. The correction does not affect NMFS' preliminary determinations presented in the proposed rule (80 FR 39542, July 9, 2015).

    Need for Correction

    As published, the preamble to the proposed regulations contains errors or typographical mistakes which need to be clarified. These errors and omissions were also incorrectly recorded within the proposed regulatory text and should be clarified there as well.

    1. On page 46941, in Table 20, the entries for northern bottlenose whales are corrected to read as follows:

    Table 20—Summary Information Related to Proposed Annual Take Authorization in the Atlantic Coast Region, 2015-2020 Species 1 Proposed total
  • annual Level B
  • harassment
  • authorization
  • Percent of
  • estimated
  • population
  • Proposed total
  • M/SI + Level A
  • authorization,
  • 2015-2020
  • Estimated
  • maximum annual
  • M/SI + Level A 2
  • PBR 3 % PBR 4 Stock trend 5
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Northern bottlenose whale 12 n/a 0 0 n/a ?     *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1 For species with multiple stocks in the Atlantic coast regions or for species groups (Kogia spp. and Mesoplodont beaked whales), indicated level of take could occur to individuals from any stock or species (not including coastal and estuarine stocks of bottlenose dolphins). 2 This column represents the total number of incidents of M/SI + Level A that could potentially accrue to the specified species or stock and is the number carried forward for evaluation in the negligible impact analysis (later in this document). To reach this total, we add one to the total for each pinniped or delphinid that may be captured in longline or gillnet gear, one to the total for each delphinid that may be captured in trawl gear, and one pinniped that may be captured in fyke net gear. This represents the potential that the take of an unidentified pinniped or delphinid could accrue to any given stock captured in that gear. The proposed take authorization is formulated as a five-year total; the annual average is used only for purposes of negligible impact analysis. We recognize that portions of an animal may not be taken in a given year. 3 See Table 3 and following discussion for more detail regarding PBR. 4 Estimated maximum annual M/SI + Level A expressed as a percentage of PBR. 5 See relevant SARs for more information regarding stock status and trends. Interannual increases may not be interpreted as evidence of a trend.     *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    2 . On page 46941, in the center column, in the amendatory text for § 219.33, remove “(Z) Northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus)—10;” and add “(Z) Northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus)—12;” in its place.

    Dated: August 11, 2015. Eileen Sobeck, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20302 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 158 Monday, August 17, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request—Food Program and Reporting System (FPRS) AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on a proposed information collection, which is a revision of a currently approved form.

    The purpose of the Food Programs Reporting System (FPRS) is to facilitate data gathering for the reporting of data for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Special Nutrition Programs. FPRS consolidated certain programmatic and financial data reporting requirements in an electronic reporting system and is the primary collection point for FNS program performance statistics and financial data from State agencies, Indian Tribal Organizations and U.S. Territories participating in the nutrition assistance programs.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before October 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden hours, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 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 may be sent to Jane Duffield, Chief, State Administration Branch, Program Accountability and Administration Division, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 818, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Jane Duffield at 703-605-0795, Room 824, or via email to [email protected] Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

    All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of FNS during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 808, Alexandria, Virginia 22302.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will also be a matter of public record.

    CONTACT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Usha Kalro at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Food Programs Reporting System.

    OMB Number: 0584-0594.

    Form Number and Name: Worksheet FNS-759 Education and Administrative Reporting System.

    Expiration Date: 08/31/2016.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: The purpose of the Education and Administrative Reporting System (EARS) maintained in FPRS is to collect uniform and standard information on nutrition education activities funded through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—Education (SNAP-Ed) program. The data collected through EARS informs management decisions, supports policy initiatives, and provides documentation for legislative, budget, and other requests that support planning within the agency. FNS intends to update the EARS form so that it reflects changes, specifically those that are a direct result of provisions in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) of 2010. In addition, FNS continues to explore other ways to improve upon or incorporate metrics that will enhance the evaluation of SNAP-Ed programs. FNS developed EARS for SNAP's nutrition education component, SNAP-Ed, which is provided for in Section 11 of the Food and Nutrition Act (FNA) 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2020 (f)(3)(B)(ii)). In 2003, the Agency convened a workgroup of diverse stakeholders to assist with this task, including people from the Federal, State, and local levels, as well as academia.

    The EARS form (FNS-759) was approved by OMB in Fiscal Year (FY) 2007. FNS implemented the first phase of EARS in FY 2008, which required SNAP State agencies to report on financial items only. Full implementation of EARS reporting requirements was completed in FY 2010. EARS provides uniform data and information about the nutrition education activities of all participating States across the country, including the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands and Guam. Data gathered through the EARS form includes demographic characteristics of participants receiving nutrition education benefits, information about education topics and strategies, and use of resources. The EARS form is designed as an annual report that SNAP State agencies submit using FNS' web-based Food Program Reporting System, OMB Control No: 0584-0594, Expiration Date 6/30/2017. State agencies submit data between October 15 and December 30 of each year for the prior FY's nutrition education activities.

    In 2010, Congress passed the HHFKA. Section 241 of the HHFKA replaced the existing nutrition education program under Section 11(f) of the Food and Nutrition Act (“FNS” or the “Act”) (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) with the nutrition education and obesity prevention grant program under Section 28. FNS continues to refer to the redesigned program as SNAP-Ed. Changes to the program mandated by the HHFKA require revisions to the currently approved EARS form/worksheet. Some of the major changes to SNAP-Ed are:

    (1) A focus on the critical problem of obesity—The program now has a wider range of evidence-based intervention strategies. Specifically, SNAP-Ed includes any combination of educational strategies, accompanied by environmental supports, designed to facilitate the voluntary adoption of healthy food and physical activity choices, as well as other nutrition-related behaviors. It is conducive to the well-being of SNAP participants and other qualifying low-income individuals and may involve programs at complementary organizational and institutional levels in addition to community and public health approaches.

    (2) A target population which more closely aligns SNAP-Ed participants with those in other FNS, Federal, and State-administered benefit programs. In the past, SNAP-Ed participants included those receiving SNAP or those eligible to receive SNAP. Following the implementation of the HHFKA, the target population is extended to individuals who are eligible to receive SNAP or other means-tested Federal assistance programs or those residing in a community with a significant low-income population. These means-tested programs include Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, among others.

    (3) Requirement for evidence-based interventions—Evidence-based approaches have been defined by the FNS Administrator in consultation with the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. FNS has provided States with more flexibility by permitting States to use funds for nutrition education and obesity prevention interventions that are developed by integrating the best available research evidence, practice-based evidence or emerging evidence. In accordance with the SNAP-Ed Guidance, these may include the implementation and measurement of policy, systems and environmental changes (PSEs). Expanding the types of environmental and policy approaches that can be used in SNAP-Ed allows State programs to build upon nutrition education and health promotion efforts in a way that better supports a more comprehensive focus on obesity prevention.

    (4) A new funding mechanism—As opposed to matching State funds for SNAP-Ed programs, FNS allocates 100 percent Federal grant funding to States, which may coordinate SNAP-Ed activities through partnerships with public and private entities in order to better leverage their financial resources. The formula proscribed by the HHFKA builds progressively to a 50/50 weighting of SNAP-Ed expenditures to SNAP participation based on the funding from the previous 12-month period ending January 31. For Fiscal Year 2015, 80 percent of the funding was based on expenditures and 10 percent of the funding was based on the State's SNAP participation rate. The 50/50 weighting applies to Fiscal Year 2018 and beyond.

    The revised form is available for review with this docket on www.Regulations.gov, in Supporting Documents. The proposed modifications to the current EARS form/worksheet include the following, where the items pertain to the proposed draft unless stated otherwise:

    • Collect data on the number and percentage of SNAP-Ed eligibles and those reached through Direct Education, Social Marketing and PSE change interventions in a State (Item 1a-e).

    • Collect data on the estimated percentage of SNAP-Ed funds expended to reach SNAP-Ed eligibles through the above intervention types (Item 1f).

    • Added a statement about the Community Eligibility Provision as a special circumstance for determining SNAP status (Items 2a and 2b).

    • Collect data on whether SNAP-Ed participation counts for each age group are actual or estimated values (Items 2a and 2b).

    • Collect data on additional settings where education is provided to SNAP-Ed participants (Item 5).

    • Collect data on whether Direct Education programs are part of a Social Marketing initiative (Item 6a).

    • Collect data on whether Direct Education supports PSEs (Item 6b).

    • Collect data on whether direct education programs are part of a social marketing and/or PSE interventions (Item 6a and 6b).

    • Removed question 8 on Indirect Education (on the current form) and added the column on “Source(s) of Data” to the table “Description of All Social Marketing Campaigns” (Item 7).

    • Collect data on PSEs (Item 8).

    • Collect data focused on classifying partnerships and their role in SNAP-Ed programs (Item 9).

    • Removed the last question on funding (Item 9 in the current form) since funds are now 100 percent federal allocations to States according to a specified formula and do not require a State match.

    The form has been rearranged to better accommodate the instructions and improve the flow of questions. This revision also reflects an increase in burden estimates. FNS estimates that 53 State agencies will respond once a year for a total of 53 annual responses. The current burden it takes each State agency to respond is 54 burden hours. In the revised data collection instrument, it will take approximately 60 burden hours for each State agency to respond which reflects an increase of six burden hours per State from the last submission. The current burden for this collection is 2,808. FNS calculates the revised total burden for this collection is 3,180 annual burden hours which reflects an increase of 300 burden hours due to program changes and adjustments. There are no recordkeeping requirements imposed by this information collection. As this is a revision to the EARS form within the FPRS system, the total FPRS burden is summarized below.

    Affected Public: SNAP State agencies and Business. Respondent Type: Businesses are identified as non-profit organizations serving as implementing partners, such as extension universities, and local program operators.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,267.

    Number of Responses per Respondent: 7.28191.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 23,790.

    Hours per Response: 3.65157629.

    Total Annual Burden Hours (Reporting Only): 86,871.

    Dated: August 2, 2015. Audrey Rowe, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20208 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Gallatin Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gallatin Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Bozeman, Montana. 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/detail/custergallatin/workingtogether/?cid=stelprdb5304491.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held October 2, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

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

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Bozeman Public Library, Large Community Room, 626 East Main Street, Bozeman, Montana.

    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 Custer Gallatin National Forest Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mariah Leuschen-Lonergan, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 406-587-6735 or via email at [email protected]ed.us.

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Review project proposals; and

    2. Recommend 2015 project proposals.

    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 September 21, 2015, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Mariah Leuschen-Lonergan, RAC Coordinator, 10 East Babcock Avenue, Bozeman, Montana 59105; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 406-587-6758.

    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 11, 2015. Mary C. Erickson, Forest Supervisor, Custer Gallatin National Forest.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20202 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS Sunshine Act Meeting DATE AND TIME:

    Wednesday, August 19, 2015 11 a.m. EDT

    PLACE:

    Broadcasting Board of Governors, Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20237.

    SUBJECT:

    Notice of Closed Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

    SUMMARY:

    The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will meet in a special session, to be conducted telephonically, to discuss and approve a budget submission for Fiscal Year 2017. According to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11, section 22.1, all agency budgetary materials and data are considered confidential prior to the President submitting a budget to Congress. In accordance with section 22.5 of Circular A-11, the BBG has determined that its meeting should be closed to public observation pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B). In accordance with the Government in the Sunshine Act and BBG policies, the meeting will be recorded and a transcript of the proceedings, subject to the redaction of information protected by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), will be made available to the public. The publicly-releasable transcript will be available for download at www.bbg.gov within 21 days of the date of the meeting.

    Information regarding member votes to close the meeting and expected attendees can also be found on the Agency's public Web site.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Oanh Tran at (202) 203-4545.

    Oanh Tran, Director of Board Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20323 Filed 8-13-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility to Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY:

    Economic Development Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice and opportunity for public comment.

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

    List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance 8/6/2015 Through 8/11/2015 Firm name Firm address Date accepted for
  • investigation
  • Product(s)
    Wiretek, Inc. 48 East Newberry Road, Bloomfield, CT 06002 8/7/2015 The firm manufactures wires and cables. The Wahl Company, Inc. 624 South Collard Street, Fort Worth, TX 76103 8/7/2015 The firm manufactures machines, tools, fixtures, discrete parts and assemblies to order. Lamjen, Inc. 2254 East 30th Street, Erie, PA 16510 8/7/2015 The firm manufactures precision machined parts.

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

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

    Dated: August 11, 2015. Michael S. DeVillo, Eligibility Examiner.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20194 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-92-2015] Approval of Expansion of Subzone 92A; VT Halter Marine, Inc.; Pascagoula, Mississippi

    On June 19, 2015, the Acting Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Mississippi Coast Foreign Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 92, requesting an additional site within Subzone 92A on behalf of VT Halter Marine, Inc., located in Pascagoula, Mississippi. The expanded subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 92.

    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (80 FR 36506-36507, 06-25-2015). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval.

    Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to expand Subzone 92A is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including section 400.13, and with the overall subzone subject to FTZ 92's 2,000-acre activation limit.

    Dated: August 11, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20268 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-117-2015] Foreign-Trade Zone 38—Spartanburg County, South Carolina; Application for Subzone; Springsteen Logistics, LLC; Rock Hill and Fort Lawn, South Carolina

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the South Carolina State Ports Authority, grantee of FTZ 38, requesting subzone status for the facilities of Springsteen Logistics, LLC, located in Rock Hill and Fort Lawn, South Carolina. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on August 11, 2015.

    The proposed subzone would consist of the following sites: Site 1 (6.6 acres) 220 West White Street, Rock Hill; Site 2 (24 acres) 5918 Lancaster Highway, Fort Lawn; and, Site 3 (42 acres) 5992 Lancaster Highway, Fort Lawn. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 38.

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is September 28, 2015. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to October 13, 2015.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at [email protected] or (202) 482-1346.

    Dated: August 11, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20264 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-52-2015] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 37—Orange County, NY; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Takasago International Corporation (USA); (Fragrance Compounds); Harriman, NY

    Takasago International Corporation (USA) (Takasago), an operator of FTZ 37, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility located in Harriman, New York. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on August 7, 2015.

    Takasago already has authority to produce fragrance compounds within Site 10 of FTZ 37. The current request would add foreign-status materials to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Takasago from customs duty payments on the foreign status materials used in export production. On its domestic sales, Takasago would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to fragrance compounds (duty-free) for the foreign status materials noted below and in the existing scope of authority. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.

    The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Beeswax abs, myroxide, octacetal, syvertal, hydroxyl ambran, safralene, cresyl iso buty, geranyl butyrate, diisobutyl adipate, allyl amyl glyocolate, jasmodione, auirantiol pure, jasmolactone, octalactone delta, g-undecalactone, methyl dioxolan, okumal, grisalva, iso butyl quinolone, peppermint oil, styrax resoid and crystarome strawberry (duty rate ranges from free to 6.5%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is September 28, 2015.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at [email protected] or (202) 482-1346.

    Dated: August 11, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20269 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Transportation and Related Equipment, Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee will meet on September 2, 2015, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology.

    Agenda Public Session

    1. Welcome and Introductions.

    2. Status reports by working group chairs.

    3. Public comments and Proposals.

    Closed Session

    4. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected] no later than August 26, 2015.

    A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on October 2, 2014, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482·2813.

    Dated: August 11, 2015. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20179 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Materials Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on September 3, 2015, 10:00 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials and related technology.

    Agenda Open Session

    1. Introductions and opening remarks on ECR by senior management.

    2. Foreign Policy brief on Cuba.

    3. Open session report by on regime representatives.

    4. Report from working groups (Composite Working Group, Biological Working Group, Pump and Valves Working Group, and the Chemicals Working Group).

    5. Remarks by the Office of Technology Evaluation.

    6. Public Comments and New Business.

    Closed Session

    7. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected], no later than August 27, 2015.

    A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the materials should be forwarded prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on March 18, 2015, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § § 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: August 11, 2015. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20178 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-880, A-201-847, A-489-824] Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and the Republic of Turkey: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations AGENCY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 17, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Eastwood at (202) 482-3874 (the Republic of Korea and Mexico), or Brandon Custard at (202) 482-1823 (the Republic of Turkey), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Petitions

    On July 21, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of heavy walled rectangular carbon steel pipes and tubes (HWR pipes and tubes) from the Republic of Korea (Korea), Mexico, and the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) filed in proper form on behalf of Atlas Tube, a division of JMC Steel Group, Bull Moose Tube Company, EXLTUBE,1 Hannibal Industries, Inc., Independence Tube Corporation, Maruichi American Corporation, Searing Industries, Southland Tube, and Vest, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners). The AD petitions were accompanied by one countervailing duty (CVD) petition also concerning imports of HWR pipes and tubes from Turkey.2 The petitioners are domestic producers of HWR pipes and tubes.3

    1 EXLTUBE is not a petitioner in the AD petition concerning imports of HWR pipes and tubes from Mexico.

    2See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Korea, Mexico, and Turkey, dated July 21, 2015 (the Petitions).

    3See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2.

    On July 23, 2015, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions.4 The petitioners filed responses to these requests on July 24 and 27, 2015.5

    4See Letter from the Department to Petitioners entitled “Re: Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and the Republic of Turkey and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental Questions,” dated July 23, 2015; Letter from the Department to Petitioners entitled “Re: Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Korea: Supplemental Questions,” dated July 23, 2015; Letter from the Department to Petitioners entitled “Re: Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Mexico: Supplemental Questions,” dated July 23, 2015; and Letter from the Department to Petitioners entitled “Re: Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental Questions,” dated July 23, 2015. (collectively, General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire).

    5See Letters from the petitioners entitled, “Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Korea,” “Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Mexico,” and “Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Turkey,” dated July 24, 2015; Response to the Department's July 23, 2015, Supplemental Questionnaire Regarding Volume I of the Petitions for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duties, dated July 27, 2015 (General Issues Supplement); and Response to the Department's July 23, 2015, Supplemental Questionnaires Regarding Volumes II, III, and IV of the Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties, dated July 27, 2015.

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of HWR pipes and tubes from Korea, Mexico, and Turkey are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.

    The Department finds that the petitioners filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that the petitioners are requesting.6

    6See the “Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions” section below.

    Period of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on July 21, 2015, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1) the period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015.

    Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is HWR pipes and tubes from Korea, Mexico, and Turkey. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice.

    Comments on Scope of the Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.7

    7See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see also General Issues Supplement.

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope). The Department will consider all comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to public information. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Monday, August 31, 2015, which is the first business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, September 10, 2015, which is 10 calendar days after the initial comments deadline.

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

    Filing Requirements

    Submissions to the Department must normally be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).8 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    8See 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements); Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

    Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires

    The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of HWR pipes and tubes to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe HWR pipes and tubes, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Monday, August 31, 2015, which is 21 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, September 10, 2015. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of the Korea, Mexico, and Turkey less-than-fair-value investigations.

    Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,9 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.10

    9See section 771(10) of the Act.

    10See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the Petitions).

    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that HWR pipes and tubes, as defined in the scope of the investigations, constitute a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.11

    11 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Korea (Korea Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and the Republic of Turkey (Attachment II); Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Mexico (Mexico Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; and Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists are dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided their own shipments of the domestic like product in 2014 and compared their shipments to the estimated total shipments of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.12 Because data regarding total production of the domestic like product for 2014 are not reasonably available to the petitioners and the petitioners have established that shipments are a reasonable proxy for production,13 we relied on the shipment data provided by the petitioners for purposes of measuring industry support.14 We note that EXLTUBE is not a petitioner with respect to the petition for the imposition of antidumping duties on imports of HWR pipes and tubes from Mexico and has not expressed an opinion with regard to the petition on imports from Mexico. Therefore, we have not included shipments from EXLTUBE to measure industry support for the Mexico Petition.15

    12See Volume I of the Petitions, at 3-4 and Exhibits I-1 and I-2; see also General Issues Supplement, at 4-5 and Exhibit I-10.

    13See Volume I of the Petitions, at 3-4; see also General Issues Supplement, at 4.

    14 For further discussion, see Korea Initiation Checklist, Mexico Initiation Checklist, and Turkey AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    15See Volume I of the Petitions, at 1.

    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for all of the Petitions.16 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total shipments 17 of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).18 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act for all of the Petitions because the domestic producers (or workers) who support each of the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total shipments of the domestic like product.19 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act for all of the Petitions because the domestic producers (or workers) who support each of the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the shipments of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.20 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

    16See Korea Initiation Checklist, Mexico Initiation Checklist, and Turkey AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    17 As mentioned above, the petitioners established that shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data. Section 351.203(e)(1) of the Department's regulations states “production levels may be established by reference to alternative data that the Secretary determines to be indicative of production levels.”

    18See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Korea Initiation Checklist, Mexico Initiation Checklist, and Turkey AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    19See Korea Initiation Checklist, Mexico Initiation Checklist, and Turkey AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    20Id.

    The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that they are requesting the Department initiate.21

    21Id.

    Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.22

    22See General Issues Supplement, at 5 and Exhibit I-13.

    The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price depression or suppression; lost sales and revenues; increased inventories and inventory overhang in the U.S. market; and decline in profitability.23 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.24

    23See Volume I of the Petitions, at 9-10, 12-27 and Exhibits I-1, I-5, I-7 and I-8; see also General Issues Supplement, at 1, 5 and Exhibits I-12 and I-13.

    24See Korea Initiation Checklist, Mexico Initiation Checklist, and Turkey AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and the Republic of Turkey.

    Allegations of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less-than-fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate investigations of imports of HWR pipes and tubes from Korea, Mexico, and Turkey. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.

    Export Price

    For Korea, Mexico, and Turkey, the petitioners based U.S. price on price quotes/offers for sales of HWR pipes and tubes produced in, and exported from, the subject country.25 The petitioners made deductions from U.S. price for movement expenses consistent with the delivery terms.26 Where applicable, the petitioners also deducted from U.S. price trading company mark-ups estimated using the petitioners' knowledge of the U.S. industry.27

    25See Korea Initiation Checklist; Mexico Initiation Checklist; and Turkey AD Initiation Checklist.

    26Id.

    27Id.

    Normal Value

    For Korea, Mexico, and Turkey, the petitioners provided home market price information obtained through market research for HWR pipes and tubes produced and offered for sale in each of these countries.28 For each country, the petitioners provided an affidavit or declaration from a market researcher for the price information.29 The petitioners made no adjustments to these prices consistent with the terms of sale.

    28Id.

    29Id.; see also Memoranda to the File, “Telephone Call to Foreign Market Researcher Regarding Antidumping Duty Petition,” on each of the country-specific records, dated July 31, 2015.

    Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of HWR pipes and tubes from Korea, Mexico, and Turkey are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. Based on comparisons of export price to NV in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for HWR pipes and tubes from Korea is 53.8 percent.30 The estimated dumping margin for Mexico is 11.9 percent.31 The estimated dumping margins for Turkey range from 102.1 to 113.7 percent.32

    30See Korea Initiation Checklist.

    31See Mexico Initiation Checklist.

    32See Turkey AD Initiation Checklist.

    Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions on HWR pipes and tubes from Korea, Mexico, and Turkey, we find that Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of HWR pipes and tubes from Korea, Mexico and Turkey, are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

    Respondent Selection

    The petitioners named ten companies from Korea, ten companies from Mexico, and 14 companies from Turkey as producers/exporters of HWR pipes and tubes.33 Following standard practice in AD investigations involving market economy countries, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the POI under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) number 7306.61.1000.34 We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within five days of publication of this Federal Register notice and make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.

    33See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-4.

    34 While the scope also references HTSUS number 7306.61.3000, we note that this HTSUS number includes non-subject merchandise. Therefore, we do not intend to use data for this HTSUS number for purposes of respondent selection.

    We invite interested parties to comment on this issue. Parties wishing to comment must do so within seven days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Comments 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, by 5 p.m. ET by the deadline noted above.

    Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the governments of Korea, Mexico, and Turkey via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

    ITC Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of HWR pipes and tubes from Korea, Mexico, and/or Turkey are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.35 A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country; 36 otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    35See section 733(a) of the Act.

    36Id.

    Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The regulation requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

    Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under part 351, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under part 351 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.37 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 38 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

    37See section 782(b) of the Act.

    38See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732 and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: August 10, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigations

    The products covered by these investigations are certain heavy walled rectangular welded steel pipes and tubes of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a nominal wall thickness of not less than 4 mm. The merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A-500, grade B specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications.

    Included products are those in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or

    • 3.30 percent of silicon, or

    • 1.50 percent of copper, or

    • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or

    • 1.25 percent of chromium, or

    • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or

    • 0.40 percent of lead, or

    • 2.0 percent of nickel, or

    • 0.30 percent of tungsten, or

    • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or

    • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or

    • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or

    • 0.30 percent of zirconium.

    The subject merchandise is currently provided for in item 7306.61.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Subject merchandise may also enter under HTSUS 7306.61.3000. While the HTSUS subheadings and ASTM specification are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2015-20271 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-489-825] Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From the Republic of Turkey: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation AGENCY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 17, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rebecca Trainor at (202) 482-4007 or Reza Karamloo at (202) 482-4470, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Petitions

    On July 21, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes (HRW pipes and tubes) from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey), filed in proper form, on behalf of Atlas Tube, a division of JMC Steel Group, Bull Moose Tube Company, EXLTUBE, Hannibal Industries, Inc., Independence Tube Corporation, Maruichi American Corporation, Searing Industries, Southland Tube, and Vest, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners).1 The CVD Petition was accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions with respect to Turkey, the Republic of Korea (Korea), and Mexico. The petitioners are domestic producers of HWR pipes and tubes.2

    1See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes, dated July 21, 2015, at Volume V (CVD Petition or Petition).

    2See Volume I of the Petitions, at 1.

    On July 23, 2015, the Department requested information and clarification for certain areas of the Petition.3 The petitioners filed responses to these requests on July 27, 2015.4

    3See Letter from the Department to the petitioners, “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and the Republic of Turkey and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental Questions,” (July 23, 2015) (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire), and Letter from the Department to the petitioners “Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental Question,” (July 23, 2015) (CVD Supplemental Questionnaire).

    4See “Responses To Supplemental Questions Regarding The Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes,” (July 27, 2015), (General Issues Supplement), and “Response To Supplemental Question Regarding The Petition Against Turkey for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties: Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes,” (July 27, 2015) (CVD Supplement).

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Government of Turkey (GOT) is providing countervailable subsidies (within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act) to imports of HWR pipes and tubes from Turkey, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.

    The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigation that the petitioners are requesting.5

    5See the “Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions” section below.

    Period of Investigation

    The period of the investigation is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.6

    6 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is HWR pipes and tubes from Turkey. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigations” in Appendix I of this notice.

    Comments on Scope of the Investigations

    During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.7

    7See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see also General Issues Supplement.

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,8 we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope). The Department will consider all comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to public information. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on August 31, 2015, which is the first business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on September 10, 2015, which is 10 calendar days after the initial comments deadline.

    8See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of the Turkey AD and CVD investigations, as well as the concurrent Korea and Mexico AD investigations.

    Filing Requirements

    Submissions to the Department normally must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).9 An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    9See 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements); Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011), for details of the Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

    Consultations

    Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department notified representatives of the GOT of the receipt of the Petition. Also, in accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department provided representatives of the GOT the opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petition.10 Consultations were held with the GOT on August 6, 2015.11 The memorandum regarding these consultations is on file electronically via ACCESS.12

    10See Letter of invitation from the Department to the GOT, dated July 27, 2015.

    11See Memorandum to the File, “Consultations with Officials from the Government of the Republic of Turkey Regarding the Countervailing Duty Petition Concerning Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes,” dated August 6, 2015.

    12See supra note 9 for information pertaining to ACCESS.

    Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the Petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the Petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,13 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.14

    13See section 771(10) of the Act.

    14See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the Petition).

    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that HWR pipes and tubes, as defined in the scope of the investigation, constitute a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.15

    15 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and the Republic of Turkey (Attachment II). This checklist is dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided their own shipments of the domestic like product in 2014 and compared their shipments to estimated total shipments of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.16 Because data regarding total production of the domestic like product are not reasonably available to the petitioners and the petitioners have established that shipments are a reasonable proxy for production,17 we have relied on the shipment data provided by the petitioners for purposes of measuring industry support.18

    16See Volume I of the Petition, at 3-4 and Exhibits I-1 and I-2; see also General Issues Supplement, at 4-5 and Exhibit I-10.

    17See Volume I of the Petition, at 3-4; see also General Issues Supplement, at 4.

    18 For further discussion, see Turkey CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition, General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petition.19 First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total shipments 20 of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).21 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act for the Petition because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total shipments of the domestic like product.22 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act for the Petition because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the shipments of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.23 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.

    19See Turkey CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    20 As mentioned above, the petitioners have established that shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data. Section 351.203(e)(1) of the Department's regulations states “production levels may be established by reference to alternative data that the Secretary determines to be indicative of production levels.”

    21See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Turkey CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    22Id.

    23Id.

    The Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that they are requesting the Department initiate.24

    24Id.

    Injury Test

    Because Turkey is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Turkey materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

    Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. The petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold of three percent provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.25

    25See General Issues Supplement, at 5 and Exhibit I-13.

    The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; increased inventories and inventory overhang in the U.S. market; and decline in profitability.26 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.27

    26See Volume I of the Petition, at 9-10, 12-27 and Exhibits I-1, I-5, I-7 and I-8; see also General Issues Supplement, at 1, 5 and Exhibits I-12 and I-13.

    27See Turkey CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and the Republic of Turkey.

    Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD Petition on behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting the allegations.

    The petitioners allege that producers/exporters of HWR pipes and tubes in Turkey benefited from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the government. The Department has examined the Petition and finds that it complies with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of HWR pipes and tubes from Turkey receive countervailable subsidies from the government.

    Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on each of the alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

    In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

    Respondent Selection

    The petitioners named 14 companies as producers/exporters of heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Turkey.28 Following standard practice in CVD investigations, the Department will, where appropriate, select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of HWR pipes and tubes during the period of investigation under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) number 7306.61.1000.29 We intend to release CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within five days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The Department invites comments regarding respondent selection within seven days of publication of this Federal Register notice.

    28See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-4.

    29 While the scope also references HTSUS number 7306.61.3000, we note that this HTSUS number includes non-subject merchandise. Therefore, we do not intend to use data for this HTSUS number for purposes of respondent selection.

    Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS, by 5 p.m. ET by the date noted above. We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.

    Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the GOT via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each known exporter (as named in the Petition), consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

    ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    Within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, the ITC will preliminarily determine whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of HWR pipes and tubes from Turkey are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.30 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; 31 otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    30See section 703(a) of the Act.

    31Id.

    Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The regulation requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.32 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule.33 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised certification requirements.

    32See section 782(b) of the Act.

    33See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: August 10, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain heavy walled rectangular welded steel pipes and tubes of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a nominal wall thickness of not less than 4 mm. The merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A-500, grade B specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications.

    Included products are those in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or

    • 3.30 percent of silicon, or

    • 1.50 percent of copper, or

    • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or

    • 1.25 percent of chromium, or

    • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or

    • 0.40 percent of lead, or

    • 2.0 percent of nickel, or

    • 0.30 percent of tungsten, or

    • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or

    • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or

    • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or

    • 0.30 percent of zirconium.

    The subject merchandise is currently provided for in item 7306.61.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Subject merchandise may also enter under HTSUS 7306.61.3000. While the HTSUS subheadings and ASTM specification are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2015-20270 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XC554 Marine Mammals; File No. 17952 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application for permit amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that Daniel P. Costa, Ph.D., Department of Biology and Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, has applied for an amendment to Scientific Research Permit No. 17952-01.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before September 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species home page, https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting File No. 17952 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 File No. 17952 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:

    Amy Sloan or Brendan Hurley, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject amendment to Permit No. 17952-01 is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

    Permit No. 17952, issued on June 11, 2013 (78 FR 37796), authorizes the permit holder to conduct long-term research on California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) studying their foraging, diving, energetics, food habits, and at sea distribution. Dr. Costa is authorized to capture, sample, and tag California sea lions and recapture tagged California sea lions throughout their U.S. range (California, Oregon and Washington). Harassment of California sea lions, harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), and northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) incidental to research activities, unintentional mortalities of California sea lions, and import and export of pinniped samples is authorized. The permit was amended via a minor amendment (Permit No. 17952-01) on October 22, 2014, to include attachment of cameras to instrumentation deployed on sea lions already permitted for capture, sampling, and instrumentation, and to include intubation during gas anesthesia. The permit expires June 7, 2018.

    The permit holder is requesting the permit be amended to include authorization to (1) add remote darting as an approved capture method with use of various sedative drugs for adult and juvenile California sea lions, (2) increase incidental harassment takes of non-target California sea lions, (3) include incidental harassment takes for the Eastern stock of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus), and (4) include takes for capture and disentanglement of California sea lions. The proposed takes are delineated in the amendment application and are requested for the duration of the permit.

    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 this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20209 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE074 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Meeting of the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Advisory Panel; Correction AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting and webinar/conference call; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This document corrects the ADDRESSES section to the Notice of public meeting and webinar/conference call that was published on August 5, 2015, which did not contain all of the necessary information for those interested in participating in the webinar/conference call portion of the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Advisory Panel (AP) meeting in September 2015. This correction changes the webinar event addresses, conference call-in number, and participant codes.

    DATES:

    The HMS AP meeting and webinar will be held from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Wednesday, September 9, 2015; and from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. on Thursday, September 10, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Silver Spring, 8777 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The meeting presentations will also be available via WebEx webinar/conference call.

    On Wednesday, September 9, 2015, the conference call information is: phone number 1-866-509-5013; Participant Code: 1475429; and the webinar event address is: https://noaaevents2.webex.com/noaaevents2/onstage/g.php?d=999136478&t=a; event password: NOAA.

    On Thursday, September 10, 2015, the conference call information is: Phone number 1-866-509-5013; Participant Code: 1475429; and the webinar event address is: https://noaaevents2.webex.com/noaaevents2/onstage/g.php?d=995421572&t=a; event password: NOAA.

    Participants are strongly encouraged to log/dial in fifteen minutes prior to the meeting. NMFS will show the presentations via webinar and allow public comment during identified times on the agenda.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    LeAnn Hogan or Margo Schulze-Haugen at (301) 427-8503.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Need for Correction

    The original notice (80 FR 46544) didn't contain all of the necessary information in the ADDRESSES section. This document corrects the ADDRESSES section so that all interested parties have the necessary information pertaining to the webinar event addresses, conference call-in number, and participant codes.

    In addition, we've included the new ADDRESSES section above, for clarity.

    Correction

    In a Notice published on August 5, 2015 (80 FR 46544), on page 46545, please make the following correction: In the first column, in the second and third paragraphs under the ADDRESSES heading, the WebEx webinar/conference call information is corrected to read as follows:

    “On Wednesday, September 9, 2015, the conference call information is: phone number 1-866-509-5013; Participant Code: 1475429; and the webinar event address is: https://noaaevents2.webex.com/noaaevents2/onstage/g.php?d=999136478&t=a; event password: NOAA.

    On Thursday, September 10, 2015, the conference call information is: Phone number 1-866-509-5013; Participant Code: 1475429; and the webinar event address is: https://noaaevents2.webex.com/noaaevents2/onstage/g.php?d=995421572&t=a; event password: NOAA.”

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20222 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE115 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting (webinar).

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will convene a joint webinar meeting of its Coastal Pelagic Species Management Team (CPSMT) and Coastal Pelagic Species Advisory Subpanel (CSPAS). The meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The webinar meeting will be held Thursday, September 3, 2015, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    To attend the webinar, visit: http://www.gotomeeting.com/online/webinar/join-webinar. Enter the Webinar ID, which is 104-871-531, and your name and email address (required). Participants are encouraged to use their telephone, as this is the best practice to avoid technical issues and excessive feedback (see the PFMC GoToMeeting Audio Diagram for best practices). Please use your telephone for the audio portion of the meeting by dialing this TOLL number 1+951-384-3421 (not a toll-free number); then enter the Attendee phone audio access code: 468-846-695; then enter your audio phone pin (shown after joining the webinar). System Requirements for PC-based attendees: Required: Windows® 7, Vista, or XP; for Mac®-based attendees: Required: Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer; and for mobile attendees: iPhone®, iPad®, AndroidTM phone or Android tablet (See the GoToMeeting Webinar Apps).

    You may send an email to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt or contact him at (503) 820-2280, extension 425 for technical assistance. A public listening station will be available at the Pacific Council office.

    Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE. Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kerry Griffin, Staff Officer; telephone: (503) 820-2409.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The primary purpose of the meeting is to discuss agenda items on the September 2015 Pacific Council meeting agenda and to discuss future meeting plans. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the CPSMT and CPSAS' intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20207 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE114 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Habitat Committee (HC) will hold a webinar that is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The HC meeting will be held Tuesday, September, 1, 2015, from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    To attend the webinar, visit: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/539285365. Enter the Webinar ID, which is 539-285-365, and your name and email address (required). Participants are encouraged to use their telephone, as this is the best practice to avoid technical issues and excessive feedback (see the PFMC GoToMeeting Audio Diagram (http://t.sidekickopen14.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XYg8pTkCFVfmWRK8qm29WW2zq3QW56dJHNf6V05r202?t=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcouncil.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FPFMC_Audio_Diagram_GoToMeeting.pdf&si=6706403137290240&pi=3e8f7565-3109-406a-8f2d-c0dfb39dbb8d) for best practices). Please use your telephone for the audio portion of the meeting by dialing this TOLL number 1+872-240-3212 (not a toll-free number); then enter the Attendee phone audio access code: 539-285-365; then enter your audio phone pin (shown after joining the webinar). System Requirements for PC-based attendees: Required: Windows® 7, Vista, or XP; for Mac®-based attendees: Required: Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer; and for mobile attendees: iPhone®, iPad®, AndroidTM phone or Android tablet (see the GoToMeeting Webinar Apps).

    You may send an email to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ([email protected]) or contact him at (503) 820-2280, extension 425 for technical assistance. A public listening station will also be provided at the Pacific Council office.

    Council address: Pacific Council, 7700 NE. Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Jennifer Gilden, Pacific Council, (503) 820-2418.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The primary purpose of the HC working meeting is to prepare for the September 2015 Pacific Council meeting, specifically Agenda Item H.8, Amendment to Modify Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat and to Adjust Rockfish Conservation Areas. Public comment will be accommodated if time allows, at the discretion of the HC Chair. The HC's task will be to develop recommendations for consideration by the Pacific Council at its September 9-16, 2015 meeting in Sacramento, CA.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2425 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20206 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE104 Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene a meeting of Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) Working Group comprised of Fishery Ecosystem Plan Team members. The working group will plan for producing a report exploring options in developing an HAPC designation process for the Western Pacific region.

    DATES:

    The working group will meet on September 2, 2015. For specific times and agendas, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The HAPC working group meeting will be held at the Council office, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813; telephone: (808) 522-8220. WebEx and teleconference facilities will be provided for the meeting. The teleconference numbers are: U.S. toll-free: 1-888-482-3560 or International Access: +1-647-723-3959, and Access Code: 5228220; The Web conference can be accessed at https://wprfmc.webex.com/join/info.wpcouncilnoaa.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone: (808) 522-8220.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    HAPC working group members will explore different process options for designating Habitat Areas of Particular Concern in the Western Pacific Region. The purpose of this meeting is to identify which process options to evaluate in a report to the Council's Fishery Ecosystem Plan Team. A public comment period will be provided. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

    Schedule and Agenda for the HAPC Working Group Meeting September 2, 2015—1 p.m.-4 p.m. 1. Introductions 2. Purpose of meeting 3. Overview of Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern 4. Options From Other Regions 5. Consideration of Additional Options 6. Public Comment 7. Deliberation on Options to Evaluate 8. Other Business Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20203 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE108 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Salmon Technical Team (STT), Salmon Advisory Subpanel (SAS), and Model Evaluation Workgroup (MEW) will hold a webinar, which is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The webinar will be held on Wednesday, September 2, 2015, from 1:30 p.m. until business for the day is complete.

    ADDRESSES:

    To attend the webinar, visit: http://www.gotomeeting.com/online/webinar/join-webinar. Enter the Webinar ID, which is 131-126-235, and your name and email address (required). Participants are encouraged to use their telephone, as this is the best practice to avoid technical issues and excessive feedback. (See the PFMC GoToMeeting Audio Diagram (http://t.sidekickopen14.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XYg8pTkCFVfmWRK8qm29WW2zq3QW56dJHNf6V05r202?t=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcouncil.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FPFMC_Audio_Diagram_GoToMeeting.pdf&si=6706403137290240&pi=3e8f7565-3109-406a-8f2d-c0dfb39dbb8d) for best practices). Please use your telephone for the audio portion of the meeting by dialing this TOLL number +1 (562) 247-8321 (not a toll-free number); then enter the Attendee phone audio access code 321-364-024; then enter your audio phone pin (shown after joining the webinar). System Requirements for PC-based attendees: Required: Windows® 7, Vista, or XP; for Mac®-based attendees: Required: Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer; and for mobile attendees: iPhone®, iPad®, AndroidTM phone or Android tablet (See the GoToMeeting Webinar Apps).

    You may send an email to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt ([email protected]) or contact him at (503) 820-2280, extension 425 for technical assistance. A public listening station will also be provided at the Pacific Council office.

    Council address: Pacific Council, 7700 NE. Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, Oregon 97220-1384.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Mike Burner, Pacific Council, (503) 820-2414.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The STT, SAS, and MEW will discuss items on the Pacific Council's September 2015 meeting agenda. Major topics include: Salmon Methodology Review, Sacramento River Winter Chinook Update, 2016 Pacific Halibut Catch Sharing Plan and Annual Regulations, and the Unmanaged Forage Fish Regulations. Other topics may include one or more of the Pacific Council's scheduled Administrative Matters. Public comments during the webinar will be received from attendees at the discretion of the STT, SAS, and MEW Chairs.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2280, extension 425 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20204 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Invention Promoters/Promotion Firms Complaints ACTION:

    Proposed collection; comment request

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the extension of a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before October 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include “0651-0044 comment” in the subject line of the message.

    Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Mail: Marcie Lovett, Records Management Division Director, Office of the Chief Information Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Cathie Kirik, Mail Stop 24, Commissioner for Patents, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-8040; or by email at [email protected] with “0651-0044 comment” in the subject line. Additional information about this collection is also available at http://www.reginfo.gov under “Information Collection Review.”

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    Under the Inventors' Rights Act of 1999, as found in 35 U.S.C. 297 and implemented by 37 CFR part 4, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is required to provide a forum for the publication of complaints concerning invention promoters and responses from the invention promoters to these complaints. An individual may submit a complaint concerning an invention promoter to the USPTO, which will forward the complaint to the invention promoter for response. The complaints and responses will be published and made available to the public on the USPTO Web site. The USPTO does not investigate these complaints or participate in any legal proceedings against invention promoters or promotion firms.

    Complaints submitted to the USPTO must (1) identify the name and address of the complainant and the invention promoter or promotion firm; (2) explain the basis for the complaint; and (3) include the signature of the complainant. The identifying information is necessary so that the USPTO can both forward the complaint to the invention promoter or promotion firm as well as notify the complainant that the complaint has been forwarded. Complainants should understand that the complaints will be forwarded to the invention promoter for response and that the complaint and response will be made available to the public as required by the Inventors' Rights Act. If the USPTO does not receive a response from the invention promoter, the complaint will still be published without the response. The USPTO does not accept complaints under this program if the complainant requests confidentiality.

    This information collection includes one form, Complaint Regarding Invention Promoter (PTO/SB/2048A), which is used by the public to submit a complaint under this program. This form is available for download from the USPTO Web site. Use of this form is not mandatory, and the complainant may submit their complaint without the form via any of the approved methods of collection as long as the complainant includes the necessary information and the submission is clearly marked as a complaint filed under the Inventors' Rights Act. There is no associated form for submitting responses to the complaints.

    II. Method of Collection

    By mail, facsimile, or hand delivery to the USPTO.

    III. Data

    OMB Number: 0651-0044.

    IC Instruments and Forms: The individual instruments in this collection, as well as their associated forms, are listed in the table below.

    Type of Review: Revision of a Previously Existing Information Collection.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; businesses or other for-profits; and not-for-profit institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 50 responses per year. Of this total, the USPTO expects that 100% will be submitted on paper.

    Estimated Time per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to gather the necessary information, prepare the form, and submit a complaint to the USPTO and approximately 30 minutes (0.5 hours) for an invention promoter or promotion firm to prepare and submit a response to a complaint.

    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 17.5 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost Burden (Hourly): $3,026.25. The USPTO expects that complaints will be prepared by paraprofessionals or independent inventors. Using the average of the paraprofessional rate of $125 per hour and the estimated rate of $30 per hour for independent inventors, the USPTO estimates that the average rate for preparing the complaints will be approximately $77.50 per hour.

    The USPTO expects that the responses to the complaints will be prepared by attorneys or invention promoters. Using the average of the professional rate of $389 per hour for attorneys in private firms and the estimated rate of $100 per hour for invention promoters, the USPTO estimates that the average rate for preparing the responses to the complaints will be approximately $244.50 per hour. The time per response, estimated annual responses, and estimated annual hour burden associated with each instrument in this information collection is shown in the table below.

    IC No. Item Hours Responses
  • (yr)
  • Burden
  • (hrs/yr)
  • Rate
  • ($/hr)
  • Total cost
  • ($/yr)
  • (a) (b) (c) = (a) × (b) (d) (e) = (c) × (d) 1 Complaint Regarding Invention Promoter (PTO/SB/2048) 0.25 30 7.5 $77.50 $581.25 2 Responses to the Complaints 0.50 20 10 224.50 2,445.00 Totals 50 17.5 3,026.25

    Estimated Total Annual Cost Burden (Non-Hourly): $493.70. There are no capital startup, maintenance, or operating fees associated with this collection, nor are there filing or processing fees. There is, however, a non-hourly cost burden associated with this collection in the form of postage costs.

    For this collection, it is estimated that 30 complaints will be received by mail. The USPTO estimates that the first-class postage cost for a mailed complaint will be $0.49. Promotion firms may choose to send responses to complaints using overnight mail service at an estimated cost of $23.95 per response. The USPTO estimates that it will receive 20 responses to complaints. Therefore, the total postage cost associated with this collection will be approximately $493.70. As there are no other annual (non-hourly) costs associated with this collection, the USPTO therefore estimates that the total annual (non-hourly) cost burden for this collection, in the form of postage costs, is $493.70 per year.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on:

    (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

    (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: August 6, 2015. Marcie Lovett, Records Management Division Director, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20192 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; “Patents for Humanity Program”

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

    Title: Patents for Humanity Program.

    OMB Control Number: 0651-0066.

    Form Number(s):

    • PTO/PFH/001 • PTO/PFH/002 • PTO/SB/431

    Type of Request: Regular.

    Number of Respondents: 110 responses per year.

    Average Minutes per Response: 60 minutes (attorney) or 180 minutes (paralegal) for the Humanitarian Program Application, and 60 minutes for the Petition to Extend the Redemption Period of the Humanitarian Awards Certificate.

    Burden Hours: 410.

    Cost Burden: $0.

    Needs and Uses

    The Patents for Humanity Program is designed to incentivize the distribution of patented technologies or products to address humanitarian needs, and is open to any patent owners or patent licensees, including inventors who have not assigned their ownership rights to others, assignees, and exclusive or non-exclusive licensees. Applications are considered in five categories: Medicine, Nutrition, Sanitation, Household Energy, and Living Standards.

    The USPTO has developed two application forms that applicants can use to apply for participation in the Patents for Humanity Program—one application covers the humanitarian uses of technologies or products and the other application covers humanitarian research. Applicants may optionally provide contact information for the public to reach them with any inquiries. Additionally, applicants may provide non-public contact information by email to the USPTO in order to be notified about their award status. Applications must be submitted electronically as described at http://www.uspto.gov/patentsforhumanity. Complete submitted applications will be available on the public Web site after being screened for inappropriate material.

    The applications are reviewed by external judges working independently. A selection committee composed of representatives from other federal agencies and laboratories will make recommendations for the awards based on the judges' reviews. Those applicants who are selected for an award will receive a certificate redeemable to accelerate select matters before the USPTO and public recognition of their efforts, including an awards ceremony at the USPTO. The certificates can be redeemed to accelerate one of the following matters: an ex parte reexamination proceeding, including one appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) from that proceeding; a patent application, including one appeal to the PTAB from that application; or an appeal to the PTAB of a claim twice rejected in a patent application or reissue application or finally rejected in an ex parte reexamination, without accelerating the underlying matter which generated the appeal. The certificates cannot be transferred to other parties.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households, businesses or other for-profits; not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    OMB Desk Officer: Nicholas A. Fraser, email: [email protected]

    Once submitted, the request will be publicly available in electronic format through reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Further information can be obtained by:

    Email: [email protected] Include “0651-0066 copy request” in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Marcie Lovett, Records Management Division Director, Office of the Chief Information Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before September 16, 2015 to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, via email to [email protected], or by fax to 202-395-5167, marked to the attention of Nicholas A. Fraser.

    Dated: August 6, 2015. Marcie Lovett, Records Management Division Director, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20193 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2015-OS-0081] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to delete a System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense is deleting a system of records notice from its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. The system of records notice is DA&M 02, Director of Administration and Management (DA&M) Mentoring Program (March 8, 2013, 78 FR 15006).

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before September 16, 2015. This proposed action will be effective on the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mrs. Cindy Allard at (571) 372-0461.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/. The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to delete one system of records notice from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

    Dated: August 11, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. Deletion: DA&M 02

    Director of Administration and Management (DA&M) Mentoring Program (March 8, 2013, 78 FR 15006)

    Reason:

    The mentoring program is no longer an active program and the records have been destroyed, therefore, this notice can be deleted.

    [FR Doc. 2015-20150 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-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: EG15-112-000.

    Applicants: Silver State Solar Power South, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Silver State Solar Power South, LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150811-5097.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG15-113-000.

    Applicants: Recurrent Energy, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of EG of RE Garland, LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150811-5121.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG15-114-000.

    Applicants: Recurrent Energy, LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of EG of RE Garland A, LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150811-5126.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2964-008.

    Applicants: Selkirk Cogen Partners, L.P.

    Description: Supplement to July 1, 2015 Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Selkirk Cogen Partners, L.P.

    Filed Date: 8/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150811-5077.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2135-000.

    Applicants: Alexander Wind Farm, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to July 9, 2015 Alexander Wind Farm, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 8/6/15.

    Accession Number: 20150806-5086.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2348-000.

    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.

    Description: Report Filing: Supplement to Filing of Amendments to Rate Schedule No. 102 to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 8/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20150807-5125.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2409-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-08-11_SA 2825 MidAmerican Energy-Highland Wind Energy II GIA (J285) to be effective 8/4/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150811-5037.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2410-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.

    Description: Initial rate filing: Executed Expedited Service Agreement between PNM and Arabella Wind, LLC to be effective 7/16/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150811-5100.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2411-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Termination of NW Energy AMPS 230 kV Line 46 MW Construct Agmt to be effective 10/29/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150811-5124.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2412-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 1884R4 Westar Energy, Inc. NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150811-5135.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2413-000.

    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of CIAC Agreement with Clarke Electric to be effective 10/12/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150811-5142.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2414-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 1885R4 Westar Energy, Inc. (Bronson) NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150811-5143.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2415-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Errata to Revision Related to Order No. 676-H to be effective 5/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150811-5144.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2416-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 1887R4 Westar Energy, Inc. (Elsmore) NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150811-5172.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    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 11, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20195 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PF15-22-000] Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Equitrans Expansion Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will discuss the potential environmental effects of the Equitrans Expansion Project (EEP, or Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans) in Allegheny, Washington, and Green Counties, Pennsylvania and Wetzel County, West Virginia, in the Commission's environmental impact statement (EIS) currently under preparation for the planned Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) Project (FERC Docket No. PF15-3-000). The Project is designed to transport natural gas from the northern portion of Equitrans' system south to a future interconnection with MVP, as well as existing interconnects on the southern portion of Equitrans' system with Texas Eastern Transmission, LP and Dominion Transmission, Inc. Because of the interconnection with MVP, the Commission staff will evaluate the two projects jointly in the EIS. This EIS will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the MVP and EEP Projects are in the public convenience and necessity.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the EEP. 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 EIS. 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 14, 2015.

    If you sent comments on the EEP to the Commission before the opening of this docket on April 9, 2015, you will need to re-file those comments in Docket No. PF15-22-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding. This scoping period is established to receive comments on the EEP, and comments previously filed with the FERC regarding the MVP Project should not be refiled under the EEP docket.

    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 planned Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a representative of Equitrans may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the Project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.

    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). 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.

    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 (PF15-22-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Summary of the Planned Project

    According to Equitrans, the EEP is designed to allow shippers the flexibility of transporting up to 600,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas produced in the Appalachian Basin to potential markets in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeastern United States. The EEP would consist of the following facilities:

    • A new 3.0-mile-long, 30-inch-diameter pipeline and a new 4.2-mile-long, 20-inch-diameter pipeline in Allegheny and Washington Counties Pennsylvania (H-316 Pipeline and H-318 Pipeline);

    • a new Redhook Compressor Station, to replace the existing Pratt Compressor Station in Green County, Pennsylvania;

    • an interconnect with the planned MVP Project and a tap on Equitrans' existing H-302 pipeline in Wetzel County, West Virginia (Webster Interconnection and Mobley Tap);

    • a new extension of an existing 6-inch-diameter pipeline and an existing 12-inch-diameter pipeline extending for 0.2-mile in Green County, Pennsylvania (M-80 Pipeline and H-158 Pipeline);

    • a new approximately 200-foot-long, 16-inch-diameter pipeline in Wetzel County, West Virginia (H-319 Pipeline);

    • a new approximately 55-foot-long extension of an existing 12-inch pipeline in Green County, Pennsylvania (H-305 Pipeline);

    • pig launchers and receivers; 1 and

    1 A “pig” is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline, conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.

    • four meter and regulation stations.

    The general location of the Project facilities is shown in appendix 1.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the planned facilities would disturb approximately 207 acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipelines. Following construction, Equitrans would maintain approximately 64 acres for permanent operation of the Project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. The actual acreage affected will be determined more precisely as Project design proceeds and likely will increase above these preliminary estimates.

    The EIS 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 a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. The 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 EIS on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EIS. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EIS.

    2 The pronouns “we”, “us”, and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.

    In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned project under these general headings:

    • Geology and soils;

    • water resources and wetlands;

    • cultural resources;

    • vegetation and wildlife;

    • cultural resources;

    • land use, recreation, and visual resources;

    • air quality and noise;

    • public safety; and

    • cumulative impacts.

    The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We will evaluate possible alternatives to the planned Project or portions of the Project. For specific resources, we would make recommendations on how to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts, in addition to the measures proposed by Equitrans.

    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our environmental review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EIS.

    We will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the comment period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section of this notice.

    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EIS.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. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, and the West Virginia Department of Environment Protection have already agreed to be cooperating agencies in the development of the EIS for the MVP Project.

    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(s), 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(s) 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 EIS 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 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.

    Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and the environmental information provided by Equitrans. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis:

    • Steep slopes;

    • erosion control;

    • alternatives and their potential impacts on a range of resources; and

    • cumulative impacts.

    Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Indian 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 planned Project.

    Copies of the completed draft EIS 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 compact disc version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Equitrans files its application with the Commission, 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. Motions to intervene are more fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the “Document-less Intervention Guide” under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a formal application for the project.

    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 (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., PF15-22). 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 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, if scheduled, will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: August 11, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20199 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER15-2304-000] Oildale 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 Oildale 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 31, 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 11, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20196 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-539-000] Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on July 29, 2015, Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gulf), 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, Texas 77056, filed an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to construct, own and operate 51,800 horsepower at two greenfield compressor stations in Carter, Menifee and Montgomery Counties, Kentucky, to enable up to 621,000 Dekatherms per day (Rayne XPress Project) of firm transportation on its system, all as more fully described in the application.

    The filing may also be viewed on the web 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. For assistance, please contact FERC at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to William A. Sala, Jr., Senior Counsel, Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC, 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, Texas 77056; telephone: 713-386-3743.

    On June 22, 2015 in Docket No. CP15-514-000, the Commission issued a Notice of Application (June 22 Notice) for Columbia Gulf's affiliate, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC's (Columbia Gas) Leach XPress Project. The June 22 Notice stated that the Rayne Express Project may have some connection to Columbia Gas' Leach Xpress Project, and further, that “Until the details of the Rayne Xpress project are filed and more fully understood, the Commission cannot begin preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to comply with the NEPA of 1969.” Columbia Gulf's Rayne XPress application filing confirms the connection between the Leach XPress and Rayne XPress Projects and thus, we can begin our analysis.

    Within 90 days after the date of this Notice of Application for the Rayne Xpress project, the Commission staff will issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review that will indicate the anticipated date for the Commission's staff issuance of the final EIS analyzing both the Leach XPress and Rayne XPress proposals. The issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will also serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's final EIS.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Comment Date: September 1, 2015.

    Dated: August 11, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20200 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. OR15-34-000] Saddle Butte Rockies Midstream, LLC; Notice of Request for Waiver

    Take notice that on August 7, 2015, pursuant to Rule 204 of the Commission's Rules of Practices and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.204 (2014), Saddle Butte Rockies Midstream, LLC filed a petition requesting temporary waiver of the tariff filing and reporting requirements of sections 6 and 20 of the Interstate Commerce Act and parts 341 and 357 of the Commission's regulations, all as more fully explained in the petition.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on August 21, 2015.

    Dated: August 11, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20197 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER15-2243-000] Silver State Solar Power South, 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 Silver State Solar Power South, 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 31, 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 11, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20201 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PF15-17-000] Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Access South, Adair Southwest, and Lebanon Extension Projects and 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 Access South, Adair Southwest, and Lebanon Extension Projects (Projects) in Docket No. PF15-17-000. The projects involve construction, abandonment, and operation of facilities by Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) that would provide incremental pipeline transportation service from the Appalachia area natural gas supply basins to markets in the Midwest and Southeast. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the Projects. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the Projects. 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 10, 2015.

    If you sent comments on the Projects to the Commission before the opening of this docket on March 13, 2015, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. PF15-17-000 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 planned Projects and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the Projects, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.

    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). 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.

    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 (PF15-17-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Summary of the Planned Project

    The planned pipeline facilities for the Projects include 19.9 miles of 36-inch diameter pipeline loop 1 in three segments, most of which would be either within or adjacent to Texas Eastern's existing rights-of-way in Meigs, Athens, Noble, Monroe Counties, Ohio. Proposed modifications to aboveground facilities would include the installation of new compression and additional modifications necessary to allow for bidirectional flow, increased horsepower requirements, and meter reversals at thirteen existing compressor stations which are expected to be located primarily within Texas Eastern's current footprint.

    1 A pipeline loop is a segment of pipe constructed parallel to an existing pipeline to increase capacity.

    At the Five Points Compressor Station in Pickaway County, Ohio, Texas Eastern would install a new 10,000 horsepower (hp) electric compressor and would abandon in-place three 2,000 hp electric compressor units. A new 16,875 hp electric compressor would be added at the Tompkinsville Compressor Station in Monroe County, Kentucky.

    Planned modifications at thirteen existing compressor station sites would include piping modifications to accommodate bi-directional flow capability along Texas Eastern's existing mainline. These modifications are proposed at the following compressor stations:

    • Holbrook Compressor Station in Greene County, Pennsylvania;

    • Lebanon Compressor Station in Warren County, Ohio;

    • Five Points Compressor Station in Pickaway County, Ohio;

    • Somerset Compressor Station in Perry County, Ohio;

    • Berne Compressor Station in Monroe County, Ohio;

    • Athens Compressor Station in Athens County, Ohio;

    • Owingsville Compressor Station in Bath County, Kentucky;

    • Danville Compressor Station in Lincoln County, Kentucky;

    • Tompkinsville Compressor Station in Monroe County, Kentucky;

    • Gladeville Compressor Station in Wilson County, Tennessee;

    • Barton Compressor Station in Colbert County, Alabama;

    • Egypt Compressor Station in Monroe County, Mississippi; and

    • Kosciusko Compressor Station in Attala County, Mississippi.

    In addition two pig 2 launcher/receivers would be relocated and two new pig launcher/receivers would be installed in Monroe County, Ohio.

    2 A “pig” is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline, conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.

    The general location of the Projects facilities is shown in appendix 1.3

    3 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 631.9 acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline, including access roads. Following construction, Texas Eastern would maintain about 70.7 acres for permanent operation of the Projects' facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. The planned loops would be mostly adjacent to Texas Eastern's existing pipeline rights-of-way and construction at the compressor stations would occur at existing facilities where no permanent expansion of the facilities would occur.

    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 a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us 4 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 will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.

    4 “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 planned Projects 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 possible alternatives to the planned Projects or portions of the Projects, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.

    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make 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 related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.5 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.

    5 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(s), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the Projects' potential effects on historic properties.6 We will define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO(s) as the Projects develop. 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 the Projects will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.

    6 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 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; 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 Projects. 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 planned Projects.

    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies of the EA 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

    Once Texas Eastern files its application with the Commission, 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. Motions to intervene are more fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the “Document-less Intervention Guide” under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a formal application for the project.

    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 (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., PF15-17). 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 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 11, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20198 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9932-28-OSWER] Twenty-Eighth Update of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Since 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has maintained a Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket (“Docket”) under Section 120(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Section 120(c) requires EPA to establish a Docket that contains certain information reported to EPA by Federal facilities that manage hazardous waste or from which a reportable quantity of hazardous substances has been released. As explained further below, the Docket is used to identify Federal facilities that should be evaluated to determine if they pose a threat to public health or welfare and the environment and to provide a mechanism to make this information available to the public.

    This notice identifies the Federal facilities not previously listed on the Docket and reported to EPA since the last update of the Docket on December 31, 2014. In addition to the list of additions to the Docket, this notice includes a section with revisions of the previous Docket list. Thus, the revisions in this update include 21 additions and 90 deletions to the Docket since the previous update. At the time of publication of this notice, the new total number of Federal facilities listed on the Docket is 2,323.

    DATES:

    This list is current as of July 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Electronic versions of the Docket and more information on its implementation can be obtained at http://www2.epa.gov/fedfac/previous-federal-agency-hazardous-waste-compliance-docket-updates by clicking on the link for Update #28 to the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket or by contacting Benjamin Simes ([email protected]), Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Coordinator, Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (Mail Code 5106P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Regional Docket Coordinators 3.0 Revisions of the Previous Docket 4.0 Process for Compiling the Updated Docket 5.0 Facilities Not Included 6.0 Facility NPL Status Reporting, Including NFRAP Status 7.0 Information Contained on Docket Listing 1.0 Introduction

    Section 120(c) of CERCLA, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 9620(c), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), requires EPA to establish the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket. The Docket contains information on Federal facilities that manage hazardous waste and such information is submitted by Federal agencies to EPA under Sections 3005, 3010, and 3016 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6925, 6930, and 6937. Additionally, the Docket contains information on Federal facilities with a reportable quantity of hazardous substances that has been released and such information is submitted by Federal agencies to EPA under Section 103 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9603. Specifically, RCRA Section 3005 establishes a permitting system for certain hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities; RCRA Section 3010 requires waste generators, transporters and TSD facilities to notify EPA of their hazardous waste activities; and RCRA Section 3016 requires Federal agencies to submit biennially to EPA an inventory of their Federal hazardous waste facilities. CERCLA Section 103(a) requires the owner or operator of a vessel or onshore or offshore facility to notify the National Response Center (NRC) of any spill or other release of a hazardous substance that equals or exceeds a reportable quantity (RQ), as defined by CERCLA Section 101. Additionally, CERCLA Section 103(c) requires facilities that have “stored, treated, or disposed of” hazardous wastes and where there is “known, suspected, or likely releases” of hazardous substances to report their activities to EPA.

    CERCLA Section 120(d) requires EPA to take steps to assure that a Preliminary Assessment (PA) be completed for those sites identified in the Docket and that the evaluation and listing of sites with a PA be completed within a reasonable time frame. The PA is designed to provide information for EPA to consider when evaluating the site for potential response action or inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL).

    The Docket serves three major purposes: (1) To identify all Federal facilities that must be evaluated to determine whether they pose a threat to human health and the environment sufficient to warrant inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL); (2) to compile and maintain the information submitted to EPA on such facilities under the provisions listed in Section 120(c) of CERCLA; and (3) to provide a mechanism to make the information available to the public.

    The initial list of Federal facilities to be included on the Docket was published in the Federal Register on February 12, 1988 (53 FR 4280). Since then, updates to the Docket have been published on November 16, 1988 (53 FR 46364); December 15, 1989 (54 FR 51472); August 22, 1990 (55 FR 34492); September 27, 1991 (56 FR 49328); December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64898); July 17, 1992 (57 FR 31758); February 5, 1993 (58 FR 7298); November 10, 1993 (58 FR 59790); April 11, 1995 (60 FR 18474); June 27, 1997 (62 FR 34779); November 23, 1998 (63 FR 64806); June 12, 2000 (65 FR 36994); December 29, 2000 (65 FR 83222); October 2, 2001 (66 FR 50185); July 1, 2002 (67 FR 44200); January 2, 2003 (68 FR 107); July 11, 2003 (68 FR 41353); December 15, 2003 (68 FR 69685); July 19, 2004 (69 FR 42989); December 20, 2004 (69 FR 75951); October 25, 2005 (70 FR 61616); August 17, 2007 (72 FR 46218); November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71644); October 13, 2010 (75 FR 62810); November 6, 2012 (77 FR 66609), March 18, 2013 (78 FR 16668), January 6, 2014 (79 FR 654), and December 31, 2014 (79 FR 78850). This notice constitutes the twenty-eighth update of the Docket.

    This notice provides some background information on the Docket. Additional information on the Docket requirements and implementation are found in the Docket Reference Manual, Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket found at http://www2.epa.gov/fedfac/docket-reference-manual-federal-agency-hazardous-waste-compliance-docket-interim-final or obtained by calling the Regional Docket Coordinators listed below. This notice also provides changes to the list of sites included on the Docket in three areas: (1) Additions, (2) Deletions, and (3) Corrections. Specifically, additions are newly identified Federal facilities that have been reported to EPA since the last update and now are included on the Docket; the deletions section lists Federal facilities that EPA is deleting from the Docket.1 The information submitted to EPA on each Federal facility is maintained in the Docket repository located in the EPA Regional office of the Region in which the Federal facility is located; for a description of the information required under those provisions, see 53 FR 4280 (February 12, 1988). Each repository contains the documents submitted to EPA under the reporting provisions and correspondence relevant to the reporting provisions for each Federal facility.

    1 See Section 3.2 for the criteria for being deleted from the Docket.

    In prior updates, information was also provided regarding No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) status changes. However, information on NFRAP and NPL status is no longer being provided separately in the Docket update as it is now available at: http://www2.epa.gov/fedfac/previous-federal-agency-hazardous-waste-compliance-docket-updates or by contacting the EPA HQ Docket Coordinator at the address provided in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

    2.0 Regional Docket Coordinators

    Contact the following Docket Coordinators for information on Regional Docket repositories:

    Martha Bosworth (HBS), US EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code: OSRR07-2, Boston MA 02109-3912, (617) 918-1407.

    Helen Shannon (ERRD), US EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637- 4260.

    Joseph Vitello (3HS12), US EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 814-3354.

    Dawn Taylor (4SF-SRSEB), US EPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth St., SW., Atlanta, GA 30303, (404) 562-8575.

    Michael Chrystof (SR-6J), US EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353-3705.

    Philip Ofosu (6SF-RA), US EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, (214) 665-3178.

    Paul Roemerman (SUPRERSP), US EPA Region 7, 11201 Renner Blvd., Lenexa, KS 66219, (913) 551-7694.

    Ryan Dunham (EPR-F), US EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202, (303) 312-6627.

    Leslie Ramirez (SFD-6-1), US EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972-3978.

    Monica Lindeman (ECL, ABU), US EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-5113.

    3.0 Revisions of the Previous Docket

    This section includes a discussion of the additions and deletions to the list of Docket facilities since the previous Docket update.

    3.1 Additions

    In this notice, 21 Federal facilities are being added to the Docket, primarily because of new information obtained by EPA (for example, recent reporting of a facility pursuant to RCRA Sections 3005, 3010, or 3016 or CERCLA Section 103). CERCLA Section 120, as amended by the Defense Authorization Act of 1997, specifies that EPA take steps to assure that a Preliminary Assessment (PA) be completed within a reasonable time frame for those Federal facilities that are included on the Docket. Among other things, the PA is designed to provide information for EPA to consider when evaluating the site for potential response action or listing on the NPL.

    3.2 Deletions

    In this notice, 90 Federal facilities are being deleted from the Docket. There are no statutory or regulatory provisions that address deletion of a facility from the Docket. However, if a facility is incorrectly included on the Docket, it may be deleted from the Docket. The criteria EPA uses in deleting sites from the Docket include: A facility for which there was an incorrect report submitted for hazardous waste activity under RCRA (e.g., 40 CFR 262.44); a facility that was not Federally-owned or operated at the time of the listing; a facility included more than once (i.e., redundant listings); or when multiple facilities are combined under one listing. (See Docket Codes (Categories for Deletion of Facilities) for a more refined list of the criteria EPA uses for deleting sites from the Docket. Facilities being deleted no longer will be subject to the requirements of CERCLA Section 120(d).

    3.3 Corrections

    Changes necessary to correct the previous Docket are identified by both EPA and Federal agencies. The corrections section may include changes in addresses or spelling, and corrections of the recorded name and ownership of a Federal facility. In addition, changes in the names of Federal facilities may be made to establish consistency in the Docket or between the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) and the Docket. For the Federal facility for which a correction is entered, the original entry is as it appeared in previous Docket updates. The corrected update is shown directly below, for easy comparison. This notice includes 68 corrections.

    4.0 Process for Compiling the Updated Docket

    In compiling the newly reported Federal facilities for the update being published in this notice, EPA extracted the names, addresses, and identification numbers of facilities from four EPA databases—the Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS), the Biennial Inventory of Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Activities, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRAInfo), and CERCLIS—that contain information about Federal facilities submitted under the four provisions listed in CERCLA Section 120(c).

    EPA assures the quality of the information on the Docket by conducting extensive evaluation of the current Docket list with the information obtained from the databases identified above to determine which Federal facilities were, in fact, newly reported and qualified for inclusion on the update. EPA is also striving to correct errors for Federal facilities that were previously reported. For example, state-owned or privately-owned facilities that are not operated by the Federal government may have been included. Such problems are sometimes caused by procedures historically used to report and track Federal facilities data. Representatives of Federal agencies are asked to write to the EPA HQ Docket Coordinator at the address provided in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice if revisions of this update information are necessary.

    5.0 Facilities Not Included

    Certain categories of facilities may not be included on the Docket, such as: (1) Federal facilities formerly owned by a Federal agency that at the time of consideration was not Federally-owned or operated; (2) Federal facilities that are small quantity generators (SQGs) that have never generated more than 1,000 kg of hazardous waste in any month; (3) Federal facilities that are solely hazardous waste transportation facilities, as reported under RCRA Section 3010; and (4) Federal facilities that have mixed mine or mill site ownership.

    An EPA policy issued in June 2003 provided guidance for a site-by-site evaluation as to whether “mixed ownership” mine or mill sites, typically created as a result of activities conducted pursuant to the General Mining Law of 1872 and never reported under Section 103(a), should be included on the Docket. For purposes of that policy, mixed ownership mine or mill sites are those located partially on private land and partially on public land. This policy is found at http://www2.epa.gov/fedfac/policy-listing-mixed-ownership-mine-or-mill-sites-created-result-general-mining-law-1872. The policy for not including these facilities may change; facilities now not included may be added at some point if EPA determines that they should be included.

    6.0 Facility NPL Status Reporting, Including NFRAP Status

    EPA typically tracks the NPL status of Federal facilities listed on the Docket. An updated list of the NPL status of all Docket facilities, as well as their NFRAP status, is available at http://www2.epa.gov/fedfac/previous-federal-agency-hazardous-waste-compliance-docket-updates or by contacting the EPA HQ Docket Coordinator at the address provided in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. In prior updates, information regarding NFRAP status changes was provided separately.

    7.0 Information Contained on Docket Listing

    The updated information is provided in three tables. The first table is a list of new Federal facilities that are being added to the Docket, the second table is a list of Federal facilities that are being deleted from the Docket, and the third table is for corrections.

    The Federal facilities listed in each table are organized by the date reported. Under each heading is listed the name and address of the facility, the Federal agency responsible for the facility, the statutory provision(s) under which the facility was reported to EPA, and a code.2 The code key precedes the lists.

    2 Each Federal facility listed in the update has been assigned a code that indicates a specific reason for the addition or deletion. The code precedes this list.

    The statutory provisions under which a Federal facility is reported are listed in a column titled “Reporting Mechanism.” Applicable mechanisms are listed for each Federal facility: for example, Sections 3005, 3010, 3016, 103(c), or Other. “Other” has been added as a reporting mechanism to indicate those Federal facilities that otherwise have been identified to have releases or threat of releases of hazardous substances. The National Contingency Plan 40 CFR 300.405 addresses discovery or notification, outlines what constitutes discovery of a hazardous substance release, and states that a release may be discovered in several ways, including: (1) A report submitted in accordance with Section 103(a) of CERCLA, i.e., reportable quantities codified at 40 CFR part 302; (2) a report submitted to EPA in accordance with Section 103(c) of CERCLA; (3) investigation by government authorities conducted in accordance with Section 104(e) of CERCLA or other statutory authority; (4) notification of a release by a Federal or state permit holder when required by its permit; (5) inventory or survey efforts or random or incidental observation reported by government agencies or the public; (6) submission of a citizen petition to EPA or the appropriate Federal facility requesting a preliminary assessment, in accordance with Section 105(d) of CERCLA; (7) a report submitted in accordance with Section 311(b)(5) of the Clean Water Act; and (8) other sources. As a policy matter, EPA generally believes it is appropriate for Federal facilities identified through the CERCLA discovery and notification process to be included on the Docket.

    The complete list of Federal facilities that now make up the Docket and the NPL and NFRAP status are available to interested parties and can be obtained at http://www2.epa.gov/fedfac/previous-federal-agency-hazardous-waste-compliance-docket-updates by clicking on the link for Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Update #28 or by contacting the EPA HQ Docket Coordinator at the address provided in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. As of the date of this notice, the total number of Federal facilities that appear on the Docket is 2,323.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Charlotte Bertrand, Acting Director, Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Categories for Deletion of Facilities

    (1) Small-Quantity Generator.Show citation box.

    (2) Never Federally Owned and/or Operated.

    (3) Formerly Federally Owned and/or Operated but not at time of listing.

    (4) No Hazardous Waste Generated.

    (5) (This code is no longer used.)

    (6) Redundant Listing/Site on Facility.

    (7) Combining Sites Into One Facility/Entries Combined.

    (8) Does Not Fit Facility Definition.

    Categories for Addition of Facilities

    (15) Small-Quantity Generator with either a RCRA 3016 or CERCLA 103 Reporting Mechanism.

    (16) One Entry Being Split Into Two (or more)/Federal Agency Responsibility Being Split.

    (17) New Information Obtained Showing That Facility Should Be Included.

    (18) Facility Was a Site on a Facility That Was Disbanded; Now a Separate Facility.

    (19) Sites Were Combined Into One Facility.

    (19A) New Currently Federally Owned and/or Operated Facility Site.

    Categories for Corrections of Information About Facilities

    (20) Reporting Provisions Change.

    (20A) Typo Correction/Name Change/Address Change.

    (21) Changing Responsible Federal Agency. (If applicable, new responsible Federal agency submits proof of previously performed PA, which is subject to approval by EPA.)

    (22) Changing Responsible Federal Agency and Facility Name. (If applicable, new responsible Federal Agency submits proof of previously performed PA, which is subject to approval by EPA.)

    (24) Reporting Mechanism Determined To Be Not Applicable After Review of Regional Files.

    Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Update #28—Additions Facility name Address City State Zip code Agency Reporting mechanism Code FEDERAL LAW ENFORCMENT TRAINING CENTER CHAPEL CROSSING RD GLYNCO GA 31524 Department of Homeland Security RCRA 3010 19A USCG Gull Rock Light Station 2.5 Miles E of Keweenaw Point on Keweenaw Peninsula COPPER HARBOR MI 49918 Department of Homeland Security OTHER 19A USCG Manitou Island Light Station 5.1 Miles E of Keweenaw Point on Keweenaw Peninsula COPPER HARBOR MI 49918 Department of Homeland Security OTHER 19A BLM QUESTAR PIPELINE COMPANY EAKIN STATION HIGHWAY 189 N KEMMERER WY 83101 Department of Interior RCRA 3010 19A DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS KERRVILLE 3600 MEMORIAL KERRVILLE TX 78028 Department of Veteran Affairs RCRA 3010 19A JAMES J PETERS VA MEDICAL CENTER 130 WEST KINGSBRIDGE ROAD ROOM GC-100 BRONX NY 10468 Department of Veteran Affairs RCRA 3010 19A DEPT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS NY HARBOR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM MANHATTAN CAMPUS 423 E 23RD ST NEW YORK NY 10010 Department of Veteran Affairs RCRA 3010 19A FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 935 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON DC 20535 Department of Justice RCRA 3010 19A GAINESVILLE JOB CORPS CENTER N.E. 40TH TERRACE GAINESVILLE FL 32609 Department of Labor RCRA 3010 19A US DOT ST LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORP EISENHOWER LOCK 76 Barnhart Island Road Massena (NY) NY 13662 Department of Transportation RCRA 3010 19A U.S. EPA, REGION 3, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE CENTER MAPES ROAD FORT MEADE MD 20755 EPA RCRA 3010 19A FEDERICO DEGETAU FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING—INDOOR FIRING RANGE 150 Carlos Chardon Ave Room 359 (539) San Juan PR 00918 General Services Administration RCRA 3010 19A CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION CLIFTON RD MS-F05 ATLANTA GA 30333 Health and Human Services RCRA 3010 19A NASA-Johnson Space Center, BUILDING 319 2101 NASA Parkway Houston TX 77058 NASA CERCLA 103 19A SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 2 East 91st St New York NY 10128 Smithsonian Board of Regents RCRA 3010 19A JOINT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS SWEENEY BLVD HAMPTON VA 23665-2769 U.S. AIR FORCE RCRA 3010 19A AIR FORCE MEDICAL OPERATIONS AGENCY AFMOA 601 DAVY CROCKETT RD SAN ANTONIO TX 78226-1885 U.S. AIR FORCE RCRA 3010 19A US ARMY RESERVE CENTER 18960 S HALSTED ST HOMEWOOD IL 60430 U.S. ARMY RCRA 3010 19A US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WHITNEY POINT LAKE AND DAM 5327 Upper Lisle Road—Rt. 26N Whitney Point NY 13862 U.S. ARMY RCRA 3010 19A U.S.ARMY, FORT POLK WARRIOR TRAIL, BLDG 350 FORT POLK LA 71459 U.S. ARMY RCRA 3010 19A US ARMY, WARRENTON TRAINING CENTER, STATION C PO BOX 700 WARRENTON VA 20186 Department of Homeland Security RCRA 3010, 103(c) 19A Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Update #28—Deletions Facility name Address City State Zip code Agency Reporting mechanism Code Harry S. Truman Animal Import Center Fleming Key Key West FL 33041 Dept of Agriculture 103c 1 Coastal Plains Experiment Station P.O. Box 748 Tifton GA 31793 Dept of Agriculture 3016 1 FS-National Tree Seed Lab Riggins Mill Rd Dry Branch GA 31020 Dept of Agriculture 3010 1 Nantahala Nf: Graham County Landfill North of Snowbird Mountain Robbinsville NC Dept of Agriculture 3016, 103c 7 Tongass NF Coffman Road Dept of Agriculture 2 Charleston National Marine Fisheries Service 217 Fort Johnson Rd Charleston SC 29412 Dept of Commerce 3010 1 Monks Corner Army Air Force Depot Monks Corner SC Dept of Defense 103c 1 Usdoe Site 011 Power Plant Paducah TN Dept of Energy 103a 6 Usdoe Y-12 Plant/Mixed Bear Creek Road Oak Ridge TN 37831 Dept of Energy 103a 6 CG-Cape Canaveral Light 9235 Grouper Rd Cape Canaveral FL 33131 Dept of Homeland Security 3010 1 CG-Carysfort Reef Light 100 Macarthur Causeway Miami Beach FL 33131 Dept of Homeland Security 3010 1 CG-Hillsboro Light Hillsboro Inlet Pompano Beach FL 33131 Dept of Homeland Security 3010 4 CG-Sand Key Light Cg Group Key W Trumbo Pt Annex Key West FL 33131 Dept of Homeland Security 3010 6 FWS-Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 2700 Refuge Headquarters Road Decatur AL 35603-5202 Dept of Interior 3016, 103c 1 Charleston Harbor Site Charleston SC Dept of Interior 103c 6 Great Smoky Mtns Natl Park USNPS Rt 2 Gatlinburg TN 37738 Dept of Interior 3005, 3010, 103c 6 Schlegel Maryland Inc. Bldg.115 Lynchburg Dr Chestertown MD 21620 Dept of Interior 3010 1 BIA Chinle Boarding School Hwy 191 15 Mi N of Chinle Many Farms AZ 86538 Dept of Interior 3010 4 Afton Canyon Union Pacific Railroad CA Dept of Interior 3016 2 BLM-Afton Canyon Union Pacific Railroad Sections 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21 &22, T11N, R6E Newberry Springs CA 92365 Dept of Interior 3016 2 Unicor Federal Prison Industries 565 E Renfroe Rd Talladega AL 35160 Dept of Justice 3010 1 Tamiami International Flight Service Transmitter West of Chrome Avenue Miami FL Dept of Transportation 103a 2 FAA-Raleigh Durham International Airport Raleigh, NC Raleigh NC Dept of Transportation 103a 1 VA Medical Center 1 Freedom Way Augusta GA 30904 Dept of Veteran Affairs 3010 1 National Air Radiation Environment Laboratory 1504 Avenue A Montgomery AL 36115-2601 EPA 103c, 3010 1 US EPA Annex 79 T W Alexander Dr Rtp NC 27711 EPA 3010 6 Fairview Substation Fairview Substation Fairview AL Tennessee Valley Authority 103a, 3010 1 Hanceville Substation Hanceville AL Tennessee Valley Authority 103a 6 Muscle Shoals Garage Tva Reservation Muscle Shoals AL 35660 Tennessee Valley Authority 3010, 103c 1 Trinity 500-Kv Substation Woodall Road at Ipeco Road Decatur AL 35801 Tennessee Valley Authority 3010 1 TVA Hazardous Storage Facility Rt 2 Muscle Shoals AL Tennessee Valley Authority 103a 6 Boone Hydro Plant TN Hwy 75/8 mi SE of Kingsport TN 37662 Tennessee Valley Authority 103a, 3010 6 Knoxville Garage 4216 Greenway Knoxville TN 37902 Tennessee Valley Authority 103c, 3010, 3005 4 Spring City Substation Highway 27 Spring City TN Tennessee Valley Authority 103a 6 Tennessee Valley Authority Highway 69A Big Sandy TN 38221 Tennessee Valley Authority 3010 4 Transportation Security Administration at Guam International Airport Chalan Pasaheru Street Tamuning GU 96913 Transportation Security Administration 3010 1 Martin-Gadsden Air National Guard Station Gadsden Municipal Airport Gadsden AL U.S. Air Force 103c, 3010 2 Montgomery Air National Guard 4600 S Richardson Rd, P.O. Box 250224 Montgomery AL 36108 U.S. Air Force 3016 2 Cape Canaveral Air Force Base 6550 Abg/Deev Patrick AFB FL 32925 U.S. Air Force 3005, 3010, 3016, 103c, 103a 6 Garden City Air National Guard Training Site Savannah International Airport Garden City GA 31408 U.S. Air Force 3010 2 Savannah Air National Guard 165 Alg, 1401 Robert B Miller Jr Dr, Savannah Iap Garden City GA 31408 U.S. Air Force 3016 2 Kentucky Air National Guard Standiford Field 1019 Old Grade Ln, 123 Aw/Em Louisville KY 40213 U.S. Air Force 103c, 3016 2 172nd Airlift Wing 141 Military Drive Jackson MS 39208 U.S. Air Force 3010 2 Donaldson Air Industrial Center Greenville SC U.S. Air Force 103c 2 164th Airlift Wing Memphis TN 37000 U.S. Air Force 3010 2 Mcghee Tyson Air National Guard Base Mcghee Tyson Airport Knoxville TN 37901 U.S. Air Force 103c, 3010, 3016 2 Nashville Air National Guard 240 Knapp Blvd Nashville TN 37217 U.S. Air Force 3016, 3010 2 Utah Test And Training Range 6.5 M. SE Of Wendover Wendover UT 89835 U.S. Air Force 103c 6 Onizuka Air Force Station 6594 ABS/CC Sunnyvale CA 94088 U.S. Air Force 3010, 103c 3 Southern California Aviation 18438 Readiness Street Victorville CA 92394 U.S. Air Force 3010 3 Space Launch Complex 4 East 747 Nebraska Ave Vandenberg AFB, San Diego CA 92101 U.S. Air Force 3010 3 Coosa River Storage Annex 4 Miles NE Hwy 202 Talladega AL 35160 U.S. Army 103c 7 Evans Army Reserve Center 507 Westgage Parkway Dothan AL 36303 U.S. Army 3010 4 US Army Aviation Center Cairns Alabama Highway 85 Daleville AL 36322-5000 U.S. Army 3010 6 USPFO For Kentucky 120 Minuteman Pkwy (Bldg120) Frankfort KY 40601-6192 U.S. Army 3010, 103c 2 Camp Mccain National Guard P.O. Box 686 Elliott MS 38926 U.S. Army 3010, 3016 1 Fort Fisher Training Site Natl Grd Trng Center Kure Beach NC 28449 U.S. Army 3016 1 Wilmington Organizational Maintenance Shop #17 1401 N Kerr Ave Wilmington NC 28405 U.S. Army 3016 1 Milan Utes 4 Miles South Milan TN 38350 U.S. Army 3016 6 Smyrna-Grubbs Kyle Training Site 1 Mile North, Smyrna Smyrna TN 37167 U.S. Army 3016 2 Tullahoma Training Site One Mile East Tullahoma TN 37388 U.S. Army 3016 6 Soldier Support Center Building #28, Marion County Fort Benjamin Harrison IN 46216 U.S. Army 3010 6 Newton Falls-Utes 1 8 Miles Rte 2 Newton Falls OH 44444 U.S. Army 3016 6 Peoria Army Maintenance Support Activity 48G 3523 W Farmington Rd Peoria IL 61604 U.S. Army 3010 3 Lawrenceville Coe-Chicago District P.O. Box 195, Route 4 Lawrenceville IL 62439 U.S. Army 3010 6 Chicago District Rte 100 Grafton IL 62037 U.S. Army 3010 6 Middletown Organizational Maintenance Shop #3 500 N Cross Street Middletown DE 19709 U.S. Army 3016 2 Milford Organizational Maintenance Shop #5A N Walnut Street Milford DE 19963 U.S. Army 3016 2 Armed Forces Institute of Pathology 16050 Industrial Drive, Ste 100 Gaithersburg MD 20877 U.S. Army 3010 1 Olney 5115 Riggs Road Olney MD 20879 U.S. Army 3016 2 Greensburg Amsa 104 W 2150 Hunter Road Greensburg PA 15601 U.S. Army 3010 1 Aafes Newport News District Center 231 Enterprise Drive Newport News VA 23603 U.S. Army 3010 1 West Virginia (WV) Army National Guard Camp Dawson ATS Kingwood WV 25550 U.S. Army 103c 2 TCR Composites (Prev. Atk Space System) 530 West Ogden UT 84404 U.S. Army 3010 6 Cross Florida Barge Canal (Buckman Lock), Saj Near State Rt 40 At Canal Palatka FL 32177 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3016 1 Greenup Lock And Dam 5121 New Dam Road Greenup KY 41144 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3010 1 Shelbiana Site Route 1, Box 501 Shelbiana KY 41562 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3010 1 Arkabutla Lake Field Office Arkabutla Lake Coldwater MS 38618 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3010 1 Grenada Youngs Landing Grenada MS 38901 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 103a 1 Sardis Lake Field Office, Lmk Highway 315 (Rt 2, Box 500) Sardis MS 38668 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3016 1 Nolf Barin Reid, Foley Foley AL U.S. Navy 103c 6 Jacksonville Naval Supply Center P.O. Box 26938 Jacksonville FL 32226-6938 U.S. Navy 103c, 3005, 103a 6 Naval Training Center, Orlando 8th Street/NTC Orlando FL 32813 U.S. Navy 103 6 NTTC Cony Station Pensacola FL U.S. Navy 103c 6 Saufley Field Netpsa FL U.S. Navy 103c, 3010 6 USN Defense Property Disposal Naval Training Center Orlando FL 32813 U.S. Navy 3010 6 Naval Support Activity Mid-South (Brac Nas Memphis) 5722 Integrity Drive Millington TN 38054-5045 U.S. Navy 3005, 3010, 3016, 103c,103a 6 Charleston Postal Service 602 Donnelly St Charleston WV 25301 U.S. Postal Service 3010 1 Cave Run Lake Bridge at Cave Run Lake Morehead KY 40351 UNKNOWN 3010 4 Iaeger Pcb Site Near Lick Branch Iaeger WV UNKNOWN 103c 2 Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Update #28—Corrections Facility name Address City State Zip code Agency Reporting mechanism Code Smithsonian Inst-Natural History Bldg 10th & Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20560 *** Unknown *** RCRA 3010 Smithsonian Inst-Natural History Bldg 10th & Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20560 Smithsonian Board of Regents RCRA 3010 21 Catron County Shooting Range PO Box 170 Reserve NM 87830 Agriculture-Forest Service RCRA 3010 Gila National Forest: Catron County Shooting Range—Reserve PO Box 170 Reserve NM 87830 Department of Agriculture RCRA 3010 21 Gila National Forest Forest Route 701 3.5 Mi E of Hwy 180 Agriculture Gila National Forest: Mineral Creek Tailing Forest Route 701 3.5 Mi E of Hwy 180 Department of Agriculture 20A King Edward Mine 18 Mi NW of Blanding Blanding UT 84511 Agriculture-Forest Service CERCLA 103 King Edward Mine 18 Mi NW of Blanding Blanding UT 84511 Department of Agriculture CERCLA 103 21 USDA FS Boise Nf: Belshazzar Mine Granite Creek Road, 3 Mi W of Placerville, T7N R4E Sec 17, Boise Meridian Placerville ID 83666 Agriculture-Forest Service Other USDA FS Boise Nf: Belshazzar Mine Granite Creek Road, 3 Mi W of Placerville, T7N R4E Sec 17, Boise Meridian Placerville ID 83666 Department of Agriculture Other 21 USDA FS Caribou-Targhee Nf: Smoky Canyon Mine Site Smoky Canyon Rd/Fs Rd 110, 24 Mi E of Soda Springs, T8S R45E Sec 24, 25 & 36; T8S R46E Sec 17, 18, 1 Soda Springs ID 83276 Agriculture-Forest Service Other USDA FS Caribou-Targhee Nf: Smoky Canyon Mine Site Smoky Canyon Rd/Fs Rd 110, 24 Mi E of Soda Springs, T8S R45E Sec 24, 25 & 36; T8S R46E Sec 17, 18, 1 Soda Springs ID 83276 Department of Agriculture Other 21 USDA FS Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Nf: Rainy Mine & Mill Site Fs Rd 5640, 12 Mi NE of North Bend, T24N R10E Sec 9 & 16, Willamette Meridian North Bend WA 98045 Agriculture-Forest Service Other USDA FS Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Nf: Rainy Mine & Mill Site Fs Rd 5640, 12 Mi NE of North Bend, T24N R10E Sec 9 & 16, Willamette Meridian North Bend WA 98045 Department of Agriculture Other 21 Camp Lonely Landfill Site Pitt Point, 1 Mi W of Pt. Lonely, W Edge of Gravel Path, T18N R5W, Sec18 Se1/4, Umiat Meridian Niuiqsuit AK 99789 USda-Fs RCRA 3010 Camp Lonely Landfill Site Pitt Point, 1 Mi W of Pt. Lonely, W Edge of Gravel Path, T18N R5W, Sec18 Se1/4, Umiat Meridian Niuiqsuit AK 99789 Department of Interior RCRA 3010 21 Opheim Radar Station 2 Miles West of Opheim Opheim MT 59250 *** Unknown *** CERCLA 103 Opheim Radar Station 2 Miles West of Opheim Opheim MT 59250 US Air Force CERCLA 103 21 Pease Air Force Base 509 Csg/Cc Portsmouth NJ 03801 Air Force RCRA 3005 Pease Air Force Base 509 Csg/Cc Portsmouth NH 03801 US Air Force RCRA 3005 20A U.S. Defense Fuel Support Support Point Trundy Road Box 112 Searsport ME 04974 Defense Logistics Agency RCRA 3010 U.S. Defense Fuel Support Point Trundy Road Box 112 Searsport ME 04974 Defense Logistics Agency RCRA 3010 21 Defense National Stockpile Center 710 Ordinance Rd Baltimore MD 21226 Defense Logistics Agency RCRA 3005 Former Curtis Bay Depot 710 Ordnance Rd Baltimore MD 21226 Defense Logistics Agency RCRA 3005 21 Defense Depot Memphis 2163 Airways Blvd Memphis TN 38114 Defense Logistics Agency RCRA 3005 Defense Depot Memphis 2163 Airways Blvd Memphis TN 38114 U.S. Army RCRA 3005 21 Ogden Defense Depot 500 West 12th Street Ogden UT 84407-5000 Defense Logistics Agency RCRA 3016 Ogden Defense Depot 500 West 12th Street Ogden UT 84407-5000 U.S. Army RCRA 3016 21 NGA?-Bethesda 4600 Sangamore Road Bethesda MD 20816 National Geospatial RCRA 3010 NGA-Bethesda 4600 Sangamore Road Bethesda MD 20816 Department of Defense RCRA 3010 22 NGA-Washington Navy Yard 1st St & M St. SE Washington DC 20374 National Geospatial RCRA 3010 NGA-Washington Navy Yard 1st St & M St. SE Washington DC 20374 Department of Defense RCRA 3010 21 NGA-St. Louis 3200 S. Second Street St. Louis MO 63118 National Geospatial RCRA 3010 NGA-St. Louis 3200 S. Second Street St. Louis MO 63118 Department of Defense RCRA 3010 21 NGA-St. Louis 8900 S. Broadway St. Louis MO 63118 National Geospatial RCRA 3010 NGA-St. Louis 8900 S. Broadway St. Louis MO 63118 Department of Defense RCRA 3010 21 Job Corps Center-St Louis E Natural Bridge Ave & Goodfellow Blvd St Louis MO 63120 *** Unknown *** CERCLA 103 Job Corps Center-St Louis E Natural Bridge Ave & Goodfellow Blvd St Louis MO 63120 Department of Labor CERCLA 103 21 Old Saint Louis Base Foot of Iron St. & Mississippi River St Louis MO 63111 Homeland Security-Coast Guard CERCLA 103 USCG Old Saint Louis Base Foot of Iron St. & Mississippi River St Louis MO 63111 Department of Homeland Security CERCLA 103 21 USHS CG Burrows Island Light Station SW Side of Burrows Island, 5 Mi SW of Anacortes Anacortes WA 98221 Homeland Security-Coast Guard RCRA 3010 USCG Burrows Island Light Station SW Side of Burrows Island, 5 Mi SW of Anacortes Anacortes WA 98221 Department of Homeland Security RCRA 3010 21 Manchester Housing and Development Authority 83 Trahan Street Manchester NH 03103 *** Unknown *** RCRA 3010 Manchester Housing and Development Authority 83 Trahan Street Manchester NH 03103 Housing and Urban Development RCRA 3010 21 USDOI BIA Signal Peak Ranger Station Bia 140 Rd-Signal Peak Road, 24 Mi SW of White Swan, T9N R13E Sec 25, Willamette Meridian White Swan WA 98952 Interior-Bureau of Indian Affairs RCRA 3010 USDOI BIA Signal Peak Ranger Station Bia 140 Rd-Signal Peak Road, 24 Mi SW of White Swan, T9N R13E Sec 25, Willamette Meridian White Swan WA 98952 Department of Interior RCRA 3010 21 BLM Eagle County Landfill T.4. N.R.83.W. Sec.10 & 11 Eagle CO 81613 Interior-Bureau of Land Management CERCLA 103 BLM Eagle County Landfill T.4. N.R.83.W. Sec.10 & 11 Eagle CO 81613 Department of Interior CERCLA 103 21 BLM Fremont T.48.N.R.12.E. Sec.19 Cotopaxi CO 81223 Interior-Bureau of Land Management CERCLA 103 BLM Fremont T.48.N.R.12.E. Sec.19 Cotopaxi CO 81223 Department of Interior CERCLA 103 21 BLM Illegal Airstrip John Greytak Section 6 T.11N.R.27.E Flatwillow MT 59059 Interior-Bureau of Land Management CERCLA 103 BLM Illegal Airstrip John Greytak Section 6 T.11N.R.27.E Flatwillow MT 59059 Department of Interior CERCLA 103 21 BLM Kremmling Dump T.1.N.R.80.E. Sec.9 Kremmling CO 80459 Interior-Bureau of Land Management CERCLA 103 BLM Kremmling Dump T.1.N.R.80.E. Sec.9 Kremmling CO 80459 Department of Interior CERCLA 103 21 BLM Roundup Landfill 1.5 Miles Northwest of Roundup Roundup MT 59072 Interior-Bureau of Land Management CERCLA 103 BLM Roundup Landfill 1.5 Miles Northwest of Roundup Roundup MT 59072 Department of Interior CERCLA 103 21 BLM San Miguel Landfill #1 T.44.N.R.15.W. Sec.26 Naturita CO 81422 Interior-Bureau of Land Management CERCLA 103 BLM San Miguel Landfill #1 T.44.N.R.15.W. Sec.26 Naturita CO 81422 Department of Interior CERCLA 103 21 BLM Sluice Gulch Leaking Adit T.6.Sr.15.W. Sec.5 Phillipsburg MT 59858 Interior-Bureau of Land Management CERCLA 103 BLM Sluice Gulch Leaking Adit T.6.Sr.15.W. Sec.5 Phillipsburg MT 59858 Department of Interior CERCLA 103 21 BLM Steamboat Point T.25.N.R.10.E. Sec.18 Pmm Loma MT 59460 Interior-Bureau of Land Management CERCLA 103 BLM Steamboat Point T.25.N.R.10.E. Sec.18 Pmm Loma MT 59460 Department of Interior CERCLA 103 21 BLM-Maybell Dump 6 Mi East of Maybell Maybell CO 81640 Interior-Bureau of Land Management CERCLA 103 BLM-Maybell Dump 6 Mi East of Maybell Maybell CO 81640 Department of Interior CERCLA 103 21 BLM-Montrose County Dump 4 Mi NE Montrose T48N R19W Sec22 Montrose CO 81401 Interior-Bureau of Land Management CERCLA 103 BLM-Montrose County Dump 4 Mi NE Montrose T48N R19W Sec22 Montrose CO 81401 Department of Interior CERCLA 103 21 BLM Chaffee County Landfill T.51.N.R.8.E. Sec.21, U.S. Hwy 285 10M North of Salida Salida CO 81201 Interior-Bureau of Land Management CERCLA 103 BLM Chaffee County Landfill T.51.N.R.8.E. Sec.21, U.S. Hwy 285 10M North of Salida Salida CO 81201 Department of Interior CERCLA 103 21 Kelly Silver Mine Hwy 395 Red Mountain CA 93558 Interior-Bureau of Land Management CERCLA 103 Kelly Silver Mine Hwy 395 Red Mountain CA 93558 Department of Interior CERCLA 103 21 Pond Mine Sec 3, T12N R10E Mdbm Forest Hill CA 95631 Interior-Bureau of Land Management CERCLA 103 Pond Mine Sec 3, T12N R10E Mdbm Forest Hill CA 95631 Department of Interior CERCLA 103 21 Poore Mine Benedict Canyon Lane Nevada Co CA Interior-Bureau of Land Management CERCLA 103 Poore Mine Benedict Canyon Lane Nevada Co CA Department of Interior CERCLA 103 21 USDOI BLM Idora Mine and Mill Site Carbon Center Road, 10 Mi SE of Pritchard, 10 Mi N of Wallace, T49N R5E Sec 30 Wallace ID 83873 Interior-Bureau of Land Management Other USDOI BLM Idora Mine and Mill Site Carbon Center Road, 10 Mi SE of Pritchard, 10 Mi N of Wallace, T49N R5E Sec 30 Wallace ID 83873 Department of Interior Other 21 Overton Gravel Pit Trespass Site 1/4 Mi W of Hwy 169 Overton NV 89040 Interior-Bureau of Reclamation RCRA 3010 Overton Gravel Pit Trespass Site 1/4 Mi W of Hwy 169 Overton NV 89040 Department of Interior RCRA 3010 21 USDOI Br Hazardous Waste Site T19N R23E Sec 31, Willamette Meridian, 25 Mi W of George, 35 Mi SW of Quincy Quincy WA 98848 Interior-Bureau of Reclamation RCRA 3010 BR Quincy Illegal Dump Site T19N R23E Sec 31, Willamette Meridian, 25 Mi W of George, 35 Mi SW of Quincy Quincy WA 98848 Department of Interior RCRA 3010 22 US Geological Survey-Marine Facility (Marfac) 599 Seaport Blvd Redwood City CA 94063 USDOI-BLM RCRA 3010 US Geological Survey-Marine Facility (Marfac) 599 Seaport Blvd Redwood City CA 94063 Department of Interior RCRA 3010 21 National Park Svc/De Water Gap Pioneer Trail Pahaquarry NJ 07825 NPS RCRA 3010 National Park Svc/De Water Gap Pioneer Trail Pahaquarry NJ 07825 Department of Interior RCRA 3010 21 FBI Academy 15 Hogans Alley Quantico VA 22135 FBI RCRA 3010 FBI Academy 15 Hogans Alley Quantico VA 22135 Department of Justice RCRA 3010 21 Transportation Security Administration 300 Rogers Blvd Honolulu HI 96819 Treasury RCRA 3010 Transportation Security Administration 300 Rogers Blvd Honolulu HI 96819 Department of Homeland Security RCRA 3010 21 IRS Philadelphia Service Center 11601 Roosevelt Blvd Philadelphia PA 19255 *** Unknown *** RCRA 3010 IRS Philadelphia Service Center 11601 Roosevelt Blvd Philadelphia PA 19255 Department of Treasury RCRA 3010 21 IRS-Washington 1111 Constitution Ave, NW Washington DC 20032 *** Unknown *** CERCLA 103 IRS-Washington 1111 Constitution Ave, NW Washington DC 20032 Department of Treasury CERCLA 103 21 United States Mint 155 Herman Street San Francisco CA 94102 *** Unknown *** RCRA 3010 United States Mint 155 Herman Street San Francisco CA 94102 Department of Treasury RCRA 3010 21 Bureau of Engraving and Printing Western Currency Facility 9000 Blue Mound Rd-1 Mile South Fm Fort Worth TX 76131 *** Unknown *** RCRA 3010 Bureau of Engraving and Printing Western Currency Facility 9000 Blue Mound Rd-1 Mile South Fm Fort Worth TX 76131 Department of Treasury RCRA 3010 21 Bureau of Engraving & Printing 14Th & C Sts SW Washington DC 20228 *** Unknown *** RCRA 3005 Bureau of Engraving & Printing 14Th & C Sts SW Washington DC 20228 Department of Treasury RCRA 3005 21 Urbandale Bulk Mail Center 4000 NW 109th Street Urbandale IA 50395 *** Unknown *** RCRA 3016 Urbandale Bulk Mail Center 4000 NW 109th Street Urbandale IA 50395 US Postal Service RCRA 3016 21 U.S. Postal Service 135 A Street Boston MA 02210 *** Unknown *** RCRA 3010 U.S. Postal Service 135 A Street Boston MA 02210 US Postal Service RCRA 3010 21 U.S. Postal Service Incoming Mail Center 307 Becham St Chelsea MA 02150 *** Unknown *** CERCLA 103 U.S. Postal Service Incoming Mail Center 307 Becham St Chelsea MA 02150 US Postal Service CERCLA 103 21 USPS Vehicle Maint Fac Fairbanks 5400 Mail Trail Way Fairbanks AK 99709 *** Unknown *** RCRA 3010 USPS Vehicle Maint Fac Fairbanks 5400 Mail Trail Way Fairbanks AK 99709 US Postal Service RCRA 3010 21 US Postal Service 5800 W Century Blvd Los Angeles CA 90009 *** Unknown *** RCRA 3010 US Postal Service 5800 W Century Blvd Los Angeles CA 90009 US Postal Service RCRA 3010 21 USPS Hillcrest Station 300 E Hillcrest Blvd Inglewood CA 90301-9998 *** Unknown *** RCRA 3010 USPS Hillcrest Station 300 E Hillcrest Blvd Inglewood CA 90301-9998 US Postal Service RCRA 3010 21 US Postal Service Vehicle Maintenance 60 W Oliver St Baltimore MD 21201 *** Unknown *** RCRA 3010 US Postal Service Vehicle Maintenance 60 W Oliver St Baltimore MD 21201 US Postal Service RCRA 3010 21 North Charleston Post office 0.7 Mile North of Aviation North Charleston SC 29410 *** Unknown *** CERCLA 103 North Charleston Post office 0.7 Mile North of Aviation North Charleston SC 29410 US Postal Service CERCLA 103 21 US Postal Service Bacon Station Stratford Dr Bloomingdale IL 60117-7000 *** Unknown *** RCRA 3010 US Postal Service Bacon Station Stratford Dr Bloomingdale IL 60117-7000 US Postal Service RCRA 3010 21 US Postal Service Vehicle Maintenance Facility Stratford Dr Bloomingdale IL 60117-7000 *** Unknown *** RCRA 3010 US Postal Service Vehicle Maintenance Facility Stratford Dr Bloomingdale IL 60117-7000 US Postal Service RCRA 3010 21 Aurora Post office Site (New) N Broadway (Rt. 25) and Indiana Circle Aurora IL 60505 *** Unknown *** CERCLA 103 Aurora Post office Site N Broadway (Rt. 25) and Indiana Circle Aurora IL 60505 US Postal Service CERCLA 103 22 Madison Post office 3902 Milwaukee St Madison WI 53714 *** Unknown *** RCRA 3010 Madison Post office 3902 Milwaukee St Madison WI 53714 US Postal Service RCRA 3010 21 Minneapolis St. Paul Bulk Mail Center 3165 S. Lexington Ave St. Paul MN 55121 *** Unknown *** RCRA 3010 Minneapolis St. Paul Bulk Mail Center 3165 S. Lexington Ave St. Paul MN 55121 US Postal Service RCRA 3010 21 Monroe Post office 210 W Front St Monroe MI 48161 *** Unknown *** RCRA 3010 Monroe Post office 210 W Front St Monroe MI 48161 US Postal Service RCRA 3010 21 Campbell Postal Service 1587 Dell Avenue Campbell CA 95006 *** Unknown *** CERCLA 103 Campbell Postal Service 1587 Dell Avenue Campbell CA 95006 US Postal Service CERCLA 103 21 City of Industry Postal Service 15421 E. Gale Ave City of Industry CA 91745 *** Unknown *** CERCLA 103 City of Industry Postal Service 15421 E. Gale Ave City of Industry CA 91745 US Postal Service CERCLA 103 21 Herbert C. Hoover Building (Aka: Main Commerce). 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 7603 Washington DC 20230 Dept of Commerce 3010 Herbert C. Hoover Building (Aka: Main Commerce). 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 7603 Washington DC 20230 General Services Administration 3010 21 Arlington Defense Printing Service office Rmbe 854 The Pentagon Arlington VA 20301 Army 3010 Pentagon Pentagon Reservation Arlington VA 22204 Department of Defense 3010 21 Allegheny National Forest 222 Liberty Street Box 847 Warren PA 16365 Department of Agriculture 103(c), 3016 Allegheny National Forest—McKinley Tar Pits Township Road 317, .5 mile east of Rte. 66 Kane PA 16735 Department of Agriculture 103(c), 3016 20A
    [FR Doc. 2015-20248 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 2015-19667) published on pages 48103 and 48104 of the issue for Tuesday, August 11, 2015.

    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis heading, the entry for The Fishback Annuity Trust I, the Fishback Annuity Trust II, the Fishback Annuity Trust VI, Patricia S. Fishback, individually and as voting trustee of the trusts, all of Brookings, South Dakota, William Cornick Stephen Fishback, Francesca Margaret Fishback, both of San Francisco, California; Abby Margaret Rivlin, and Toby Sebastian Rivlin, both of Madison, Wisconsin; to retroactively join the Fishback Family Control group, is revised to read as follows:

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Fishback Annuity Trust I, the Fishback Annuity Trust II, the Fishback Annuity Trust VI, Patricia S. Fishback, individually and as voting trustee of the trusts, all of Brookings, South Dakota, William Fishback, San Francisco, California, Francesca Fishback, San Francisco, California, Abby Rivlin, Madison, Wisconsin, Toby Rivlin, Madison, Wisconsin, and Fishback Grandchildren Trust I, Brookings, South Dakota, First Bank & Trust, Brookings, South Dakota, trustee, to retroactively join the Fishback Family Control group which controls 25 percent or more of the shares of Fishback Financial Corporation, Brookings, South Dakota and indirectly control First Bank & Trust, Brookings, South Dakota, First Bank & Trust, N.A., Pipestone, Minnesota, First Bank & Trust, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and First Bank & Trust of Milbank, Milbank, South Dakota.

    Comments on this application must be received by August 25, 2015.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 12, 2015. Margaret McCloskey Shanks, <E T="03">Deputy Secretary of the Board.</E>
    [FR Doc. 2015-20180 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than August 31, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:

    1. Jeffrey Joseph Woda, Columbus, Ohio, and David Cooper, Jr., Gahanna, Ohio, individually and as a group acting in concert, to acquire additional voting shares of Benchmark Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire additional voting shares of Benchmark Bank, both in Gahanna, Ohio.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Joanne E. Matthews, individually and as trustee of Haviland Bancshares, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Leawood, Kansas, to acquire additional voting shares of Haviland Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire additional voting shares of The Haviland State Bank, both in Haviland, Kansas; and Stanley E. Robertson, Greensburg, Kansas, to retain voting shares of Haviland Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of the Haviland State Bank, both in Haviland, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 11, 2015.

    Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20176 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    10:00 a.m. (Eastern Time) August 24, 2015 (Telephonic).

    PLACE:

    10th Floor Board Meeting Room, 77 K Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Open Session 1. Approval of the Minutes of the July 27, 2015 Board Member Meeting 2. Monthly Reports (a) Monthly Participant Activity Report (b) Legislative Report (c) Investment Policy Report 3. Quarterly Metrics Report 4. Calendar Review: 2015 and 2016 CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. James Petrick, General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20231 Filed 8-13-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30 Day-15-15AFJ] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) 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; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 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; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    The Green Housing Pilot Study (New Orleans)—New—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) seeks a new three-year OMB approval for the Green Housing Pilot Study (New Orleans) or “Pilot” of additional components to be tested at the New Orleans site for the main Green Housing Study (OMB No. 0920-0906, Expiration 10/31/2017). The goal of the Pilot is to apply novel approaches to study exposures to various indoor pollutants in children ranging in age from newborn-12 years. The information collected will help scientists better understand time-activity patterns of children that affect exposures to chemical and biological agents in their residential environments, and improve estimates of exposure for children.

    Results from this Pilot will inform future Green Housing Study sites and will potentially reduce participant time burden by collecting some questionnaires electronically. This study directly supports the Healthy People 2020 Healthy Homes' health protection goal of the CDC. This investigation is consistent with CDC's Health Protection Research Agenda, which calls for research to identify the major environmental causes of disease and disability and related risk factors.

    In 2011, CDC funded the first two study sites for the Green Housing Study, Boston and Cincinnati. In these two cities, renovations sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had already been scheduled. By selecting sites in which renovations were already scheduled to occur, CDC has leveraged the opportunity to collect survey and biomarker data from residents, and to collect environmental measurements in homes to evaluate associations between green housing and health.

    Several objectives will be evaluated during the Pilot:

    (1) Identify and characterize factors affecting children's exposures to chemical ingredients from consumer products found in their everyday environment to support the data and modeling needs of the exposure components of EPA's national research programs;

    (2) Evaluate the Pilot data metrics for incorporation in and enhancement of CDC's ability to understand the relationship between environmental exposures and asthma;

    (3) Compare multimedia measurements and survey data between pre- and post-renovation time points in green and non-green low-income housing to assess exposure related changes in the residence and participants due to renovation activities.

    Like the other Green Housing Study sites, data will be collected from 64 households. Study participants are children with asthma and their mothers/primary caregivers living in HUD-subsidized housing that has either received a green renovation or is a non-green home. This Pilot will also enroll younger children with a focus on newborns-3 years. Having a larger age range of children in the study will improve the estimates of how environmental exposures inside and outside of their homes can occur during different life stages of childhood, a critical period of life when the immune system and other organ systems are still developing.

    The Pilot will be implemented by incorporating it into the Green Housing study schedule. Data collection methods include: (1) Time-activity pattern questionnaire of children, administered to mothers/primary caregivers; (2) collection of air, soil, dust samples from the respondent's home; and (3) collection of blood, urine, toenails clippings, and feces from the respondent's eligible children.

    We hypothesize that a better estimation of exposure pathways will improve exposure modeling for the current and the future Green Housing Study sites, and influence future research in environmental health. Although children are considered participants, the respondents to all questionnaires are the mothers/primary caregivers; no children will fill out questionnaires.

    The respondents are 64 mothers/primary caregivers of enrolled children; or approximately 21 respondents each year. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time to participate in the study.

    The total estimated annual burden hours for the Pilot is 56 hours.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hrs.)
  • Mothers/Primary Caregivers of Enrolled Children Time/Activity Questionnaire 21 4 40/60
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20191 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Privacy Act of 1974: Report of New System of Records AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

    ACTION:

    Notice of New System of Records (SOR).

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, we are proposing to establish a new SOR titled, “CMS Risk Adjustment Suite of Systems (RASS),” System No. 09-70-0508. Payments to Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations, Part D sponsors, and Program of All Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) organizations (collectively referred to as “MA organizations and other entities”) are adjusted based on the health status of enrolled Medicare beneficiaries (“enrollees”). RASS is established to receive, process, and store the data used to risk-adjust payments based on enrollee health status. The data will be used specifically to develop risk adjustment models and to calculate the risk score for each enrollee.

    Each MA organization and other entity must submit data to CMS in accordance with CMS regulations and instructions. “Risk adjustment data” refers to data submitted in two separate formats: comprehensive data equivalent to Medicare fee-for-service data (often referred to as encounter data); and data in abbreviated formats (often referred to as RAPS data). The MA risk adjustment data addressed by this SOR includes RAPS data submitted by a MA organization in an abbreviated format, as referenced at § 422.310(d)(1), and similar abbreviated risk adjustment data submitted by other MA organizations and other entities. Encounter data has a separate SOR (System No. 09-70-0506).

    DATES:

    Effective 30 days after publication. Written comments should be submitted on or before the effective date. HHS/CMS/CM may publish an amended system of records notice (SORN) in light of any comments received.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public should address comments to: CMS Privacy Officer, Division of Security, Privacy Policy & Governance, Information Security & Privacy Group, Office of Enterprise Information, CMS, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1870, Mailstop: N1-24-08, Office: (410) 786-5357, email: [email protected] Comments received will be available for review at this location, by appointment, during regular business hours, Monday through Friday from 9 a.m.-3 p.m., Eastern Time zone.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Risk Adjustment Mailbox Coordinator, Division of Encounter Data and Risk Adjustment Operations, Medicare Plan Payment Group, Center for Medicare, CMS, Mail Stop C1-13-07, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850. The email is [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background on the Risk Adjustment Suite of Systems (RASS)

    The new RASS system of records is being established to cover data used to create risk adjustment scores needed to risk-adjust payments to Medicare and Medicaid provider entities, based on beneficiary demographics and health status. Risk-adjusted payments will implement reformatory provisions of the Social Security Act at sections 1853(a), 1860D-15(c), and 1894(d)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-23, 1395w-115, and 1395eee), intended to collect and accurately calculate scores based on a beneficiary's demographics and health status. RASS will cover data housed in two existing information systems: The Risk Adjustment Processing System (RAPS), and the Risk Adjustment System (RAS). RAS will contain data extracted from RAPS and from two other IT systems (CME and NMUD), as more fully explained below:

    RAPS will receive abbreviated current risk adjustment data, consisting of diagnosis data about each beneficiary and the beneficiary's health care provider type, submitted by the relevant payee entity through the Front-End Risk Adjustment System (FERAS); RAPS will use the data to create an enrollee diagnosis data file for each beneficiary (See Categories of Records for data elements).

    RAS will extract the enrollee diagnosis data files from RAPS and will receive current demographic, enrollment and diagnoses data and past medical history data for each enrollee from two other CMS systems (CME and NMUD); RAS will use the RAPS, CME, and NMUD data to calculate risk factors and create a Risk Adjustment Factor (RAF) file, containing the risk score of each beneficiary:

    Common Medicare Environment (CME): RAS will extract current individual demographic and enrollment data about each enrollee (See Categories of Records for data elements).

    National Claims History files housed in the National Medicare Utilization Database (NMUD): RAS will extract current Medicare Fee-for-service (FFS) diagnoses information submitted on Inpatient, Outpatient, and Physician claims for each enrollee (See Categories of Records for data elements).

    ○ RAS will transmit the Risk Adjustment Factor (RAF) file created in RAS to CMS' payment processing system for purposes of calculating and adjusting payments to payee entities, as follows:

    CMS pays MA organizations on a monthly prospective amount for each beneficiary enrolled (enrollee) in a Part C plan.

    CMS pays Part D sponsors a monthly prospective amount that reflects the plan sponsor's estimate of the revenue needed to cover a plan's costs for the risk portion of basic prescription drug coverage. The direct subsidy is adjusted based on the beneficiary's risk score, which reflects expected prescription drug expenditures for the coverage year (relative to a national average of 1.0), based on demographic and health status information for that person.

    CMS pays PACE organizations a monthly capitation amount based on the Part A and Part B payment rates established for purposes of payment to Medicare Advantage organizations pursuant to 1894(d)(2). CMS will ensure that payments take into account the comparative frailty of PACE enrollees relative to the general Medicare population.

    In addition to providing the file used to calculate risk adjustment payments, the RASS also provides reports for CMS based on the analysis of RAF files and other criteria; these reports include MA plan file submission transactions (acceptance rates, rejection rates, error rates, etc.) on a daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly basis.

    II. The Privacy Act

    The Privacy Act governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of certain information about individuals by agencies of the Federal Government.

    A “SOR” is a group of any records under the control of a Federal agency from which information about individuals is retrieved by name or other personal identifier. The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in the Federal Register notice of the existence and character of each SOR that the agency maintains. The System of Records Notice (SORN) identifies or describes the laws authorizing the system to be maintained; the types and sources of records in the system; the categories of individuals to whom the records pertain; the purposes for which the records are used within the agency; the routine uses for which a record maybe disclosed to parties outside the agency without the individual's prior, written consent; agency policies and procedures for safeguarding, storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of the records; the procedures for an individual to follow to make notification, access, and amendment requests to the System Manager; and whether the SOR is exempt from certain Privacy Act requirements.

    System Number:

    09-70-0508

    System Name:

    CMS Risk Adjustment Suite of Systems (RASS), HHS/CMS/CM.

    Security Classification:

    Unclassified.

    System Location:

    RASS (RAS/RAPS) Location: CMS Data Center, 7500 Security Boulevard, North Building, First Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    Categories of Individuals Covered by the System:

    Information collected and maintained in this system pertains to: (1) Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in a Part C MA plan, MA-PD plan, PDP or PACE organization (“enrollees”) and (2) the health care provider(s), supplier(s), physician(s), or other practitioner(s) (“Providers”) who provide health care items and services to these enrollees.

    Categories of Records in the System:

    The MA plans, MA-PDs, PDPs and PACE organizations (“MA organizations and other entities”) receive the data from the providers which is then submitted to RAPS via FERAS. The data received from the MA organizations and other entities are primarily diagnosis data extracted from claims information. Additional FFS and utilization data regarding those submissions are received from the CME and NCH data systems to complete the enrollee data requirements.

    Records will consist of the risk score for each enrollee and the data used to calculate the score, contained in Risk Adjustment Factor (RAF) files created in CMS' Risk Adjustment System (RAS), using data extracted from three other CMS IT systems:

    RAPS data: Diagnosis data files containing abbreviated current diagnosis data submitted by payee entities to CMS's Risk Adjustment Processing System (RAPS):

    ○ Health Insurance Claim Number (HICN)

    ○ Provider Type

    ○ Service From Date

    ○ Service Through Date

    ○ Plan Number (MAO contract number)

    ○ Diagnosis Code

    ○ Diagnosis Delete Date

    ○ RAS Diagnosis Indicator

    ○ NCH Category Equitable BIC

    ○ Accrete Data

    ○ Delete Plan Number

    ○ Submitter ID

    ○ Daily File Code, and

    ○ Delete File Code

    CME data: Current demographic and enrollment data from CMS's Common Medicare Environment (CME):

    ○ Beneficiary Link Key Partition number

    ○ Beneficiary Link Identifier

    ○ Health Insurance Claim Number (HICN)

    ○ Beneficiary Social Security Number

    ○ Beneficiary Birth Date

    ○ Beneficiary Death Date

    ○ Beneficiary Sex Code

    ○ Beneficiary Race Code

    ○ Beneficiary First Name

    ○ Beneficiary Middle Name

    ○ Beneficiary Last Name

    NCH data: Current diagnosis data [and past medical history data] from National Claims History Files in CMS's National Medicare Utilization Database (NMUD):

    ○ Health Insurance Claim Number (HICN)

    ○ NCH Category Equitable BIC

    ○ Diagnosis code

    ○ Service Through Date

    ○ Service From Date

    ○ Beneficiary Link Identifier

    ○ Provider Number

    Authority for Maintenance of the System:

    This system was established pursuant to sections 1853(a), 1860D-15(c), and 1894(d)(2)of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-23, 1395w-115, 1395eee).

    Purpose(s) of the System:

    Records will be used within the agency to develop risk adjustment models and to calculate the risk score for each Medicare beneficiary enrolled in the Medicare health plan. The risk score will be reported to the system that CMS uses to process payments, and ultimately will be used to adjust payments to MA organizations, Part D sponsors, and PACE organizations, based on beneficiary health status. (Note that payment records are not covered under this system of records.)

    Information retrieved from this SOR will be used for the following purposes:

    • To determine the risk adjustment factors used to adjust payments to MA organizations and other entities, as required under 42 CFR 422.304(a) and (c), 423.329 and 460.180 • to update risk adjustment models • to calculate Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) percentages • to conduct quality review and improvement activities for Medicare coverage purposes • to conduct evaluations and other analysis to support the Medicare program (including demonstrations) • to support public health initiatives and other health care-related research • for activities to support the administration of the Medicare program • for activities conducted to support program integrity • for purposes authorized by applicable law Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System, Including Categories or Users and the Purposes of Such Uses:

    Records may be disclosed to parties outside HHS, without the individual record subject's prior, written consent, for the following purposes:

    1. To determine the risk adjustment factors used to adjust payments, as required under §§ 422.304(a) and (c), 423.329, and 460.180, to update risk adjustment models, to calculate Medicare DSH percentages, to conduct quality review and improvement activities, for Medicare coverage purposes, to conduct evaluations and other analysis to support the Medicare program (including demonstrations) and to support public health initiatives, for activities conducted to support program integrity, and for purposes authorized by applicable law.

    2. To support CMS contractors, consultants, or grantees that have been contracted by the Agency when necessary to assist in accomplishment of a CMS function relating to the purposes for this system or a purpose listed in paragraph 1.

    3. To support an individual or organization for research to support the Medicare program and public health initiatives, and otherwise related to health care, such as evaluation or epidemiological projects related to the prevention of disease or disability, the restoration or maintenance of health, or for understanding and improving payment projects.

    4. To provide information to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), a court, or an adjudicatory body when (a) the Agency or any component thereof, or (b) any employee of the Agency in his or her official capacity, or (c) any employee of the Agency in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ has agreed to represent the employee, or (d) the United State Government, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, CMS determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and that the use of such records by the DOJ, court, or adjudicatory body is compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records.

    5. To assist a CMS contractor (including, but not limited to Medicare Administrative Contractors, fiscal intermediaries, and carriers) that assists in the administration of a CMS-administered health benefits program, or to a grantee of a CMS-administered grant program, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud, waste or abuse in such program.

    6. To assist another Federal agency or an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States (including any state or local governmental agency), that administers or that has the authority to investigate potential fraud, waste or abuse in a health benefits program funded in whole or in part by Federal funds, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud, waste or abuse in such programs.

    7. To assist Medicare Advantage organizations, Part D Sponsors and PACE organizations with improving the quality of required risk adjustment data obtained from the provider that furnished the item or service. CMS will be analyzing the data received and advising MA organizations, Part D Sponsors and PACE organizations of trends and data analysis results to help improve the accuracy and completeness of data received from the provider.

    8. To assist appropriate Federal agencies and CMS contractors and consultants that have a need to know the information for the purpose of assisting CMS' efforts to respond to a suspected or confirmed breach of the security or confidentiality of information maintained in this system of records, provided that the information disclosed is relevant and necessary for that assistance.

    Note:

    CMS may disclose information from this system of records, without the individual record subject's consent, for any of the following purposes referenced directly in the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(1), (3)-(8), and (12). CMS must also disclose information from this system of records, without the individual record subject's consent, for any of the following purposes referenced directly in the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(2), and (b)(9)-(11).

    Additional Provisions Affecting Routine Use Disclosures:

    This system contains Protected Health Information (PHI) as defined by HHS regulation “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” (45 CFR parts 160 and 164, 65 FR 82462 (12-28-00), subparts A and E). Disclosures of PHI authorized by these routine uses may only be made if, and as, permitted or required by the “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information.”

    In addition, our policy will be to prohibit release even of data that is not directly identifiable, except if required by law, if we determine there is a possibility that an individual can be identified through implicit deduction based on small cell sizes (instances where the patient population is so small that individuals could, because of the small size, use this information to deduce the identity of the beneficiary).

    Note:

    Information collected or obtained under § 1860D-15 (i.e., risk adjustment data used to pay Part D plan sponsors) will be used and disclosed only in accordance with the statutory limitations under § 1860D-15(f)(2).

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEMStorage:

    Archived records will be stored on magnetic tapes. Data that is currently in use is stored in the RAPS database.

    Retrievability:

    Records will be retrieved by National Provider Identifier (NPI), beneficiary provider name, or beneficiary Health Insurance Claim Number.

    Safeguards:

    Personnel having access to the system have been trained in the Privacy Act and information security requirements. Employees who maintain records in this system are instructed not to release data until the intended recipient agrees to implement appropriate management, operational, and technical safeguards sufficient to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the information and information systems; and to prevent unauthorized access. Access to records in the RASS will be limited to CMS personnel and contractors through password security, encryption, firewalls, and secured operating system(s).

    Retention and Disposal:

    Records (i.e., enrollee diagnosis data files created in RAPS, and Risk Adjustment Factor (RAF) files created in RAS) will be maintained for a period of up to 10 years after date of creation. Any such records that are needed longer, such as to resolve claims and audit exceptions or to prosecute fraud, will be retained until such matters are resolved. Enrollee claims records are currently subject to a document preservation order and will be preserved indefinitely pending further notice from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

    System Manager and Address:

    Director, Division of Encounter Data and Risk Adjustment Operations, Medicare Plan Payment Group, Center for Medicare, CMS, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    Notification Procedure:

    Individuals (i.e., the beneficiary or provider) wishing to know if this system contains records about them should write to the system manager and include pertinent personally identifiable information (encrypted and properly transmitted) to be used for retrieval of their records (i.e., NPI or Health Insurance Claim Number).

    Record Access Procedure:

    Individuals seeking access to records about them in this system should follow the same instructions indicated under “Notification Procedure” and reasonably specify the record content being sought. (These procedures are in accordance with Department regulation 45 CFR 5b.5(a)(2)).

    Contesting Record Procedures:

    Individuals seeking to contest the content of information about them in this system should follow the same instructions indicated under “Notification Procedure.” The request should: reasonably identify the record and specify the information being contested; state the corrective action sought; and provide the reasons for the correction, with supporting justification. (These procedures are in accordance with Department regulation 45 CFR 5b.7.)

    Record Source Categories:

    RASS processes data extracted from RAPS and RAS IT systems to calculate the risk scores used to adjust payments to Medicare Advantage organizations, Part D plan sponsors and PACE plans. RAS receives the most current data for each Medicare Part C and Part D beneficiary from the following sources: RAPS, Common Medicare Environment (CME) also known as Medicare Beneficiary Database (MBD/CME), and National Medicare Utilization Database (NMUD). RAPS receives risk adjustment data from MA organizations and other entities defined above.

    Systems Exempted from Certain Provisions of the Act:

    None.

    Celeste Dade-Vinson, Health Insurance Specialist, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20224 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2000-D-0103] Botanical Drug Development; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Botanical Drug Development.” This guidance describes FDA's current thinking on appropriate development plans for botanical drugs to be submitted in new drug applications (NDAs) and specific recommendations on submitting investigational new drug applications (INDs) in support of future NDA submissions for botanical drugs. In addition, this guidance provides general information on the over-the-counter (OTC) drug monograph system for botanical drugs. Although this guidance does not intend to provide recommendations specific to botanical drugs to be marketed under biologics license applications (BLAs), many scientific principles described in this guidance may also apply to these products. This draft guidance revises the guidance for industry entitled “Botanical Drug Products” issued in June 2004.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by October 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sau L. Lee, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 4144, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2905, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Botanical Drug Development.” This guidance describes the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research's current thinking on appropriate development plans for botanical drugs to be submitted in NDAs and specific recommendations on submitting INDs in support of future NDA submissions for botanical drugs. In addition, this guidance provides general information on the OTC drug monograph system for botanical drugs. Although this guidance does not intend to provide recommendations specific to botanical drugs to be marketed under BLAs, many scientific principles described in this guidance may also apply to these products.

    This guidance specifically discusses several areas in which, due to the unique nature of botanical drugs, the Agency finds it appropriate to apply regulatory policies that differ from those applied to nonbotanical drugs, such as synthetic, semi-synthetic, or otherwise highly purified or chemically modified drugs, including antibiotics derived from microorganisms. Because this guidance focuses on considerations unique to botanical drugs, policies and recommendations applicable to both botanical and nonbotanical drugs are generally not covered in this document.

    This guidance revises the final guidance for industry entitled “Botanical Drug Products” issued in June 2004. The general approach to botanical drug development has remained unchanged since that time; however, based on improved understanding of botanical drugs and experience acquired in the reviews of NDAs and INDs for these drugs, specific recommendations have been modified and new sections have been added to better address late-phase development and NDA submission for botanical drugs.

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on botanical drug development. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    III. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The guidance explains the circumstances under which FDA regulations require approval of an NDA for marketing a botanical drug product and when such a product may be marketed under an OTC drug monograph. The regulations governing the preparation and submission of an NDA are in part 314 (21 CFR part 314), and the guidance does not contain any recommendations that exceed the requirements of these regulations. FDA has estimated the information collection requirements resulting from the preparation and submission of an NDA, and OMB has approved the burden under OMB control number 0910-0001. FDA anticipates that any NDAs submitted for botanical drug products would be included under the burden estimates approved by OMB for part 314.

    The regulations on the procedures for classifying OTC drugs as generally recognized as safe and effective and not misbranded, and for establishing OTC drug monographs, are set forth in § 330.10 (21 CFR 330.10). FDA believes that any botanical drug products that may be eligible for inclusion in an OTC drug monograph under current § 330.10 have already been or presently are being considered for such inclusion.

    The guidance also provides scientific and regulatory guidance to sponsors on conducting clinical investigations of botanical drugs. The regulations governing the preparation and submission of INDs are in part 312 (21 CFR part 312). The guidance does not contain any recommendations that exceed the requirements in those regulations. FDA has estimated the information collection requirements resulting from the preparation and submission of an IND under part 312, and OMB has approved the reporting and recordkeeping burden under OMB control number 0910-0014.

    IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20230 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0012] Disease Natural History Database Development—(U24) AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of grant funds for the support of Natural History Database Development. The National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) is developing an Internet-based data collection tool with promise to further the accumulation of natural history data for many rare diseases. The goal of this grant is to enable NORD to further develop, refine, and disseminate the database tool.

    DATES:

    Important dates are as follows:

    1. The application due date is September 4, 2015.

    2. The anticipated start date is September 2015.

    3. The opening date is July 2015.

    4. The expiration date is September 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic applications to: http://www.grants.gov. For more information, see section III of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Kaiser, Office of Translational Sciences, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-1237, [email protected]

    Vieda Hubbard, Office of Acquisition and Grants Services, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 240-402-7588, [email protected]

    For more information on this funding opportunity announcement (FOA) and to obtain detailed requirements, please refer to the full FOA located at www.grants.gov. Search by Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-FD-15-038.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Funding Opportunity Description RFA-FD-15-038 93.103 A. Background

    There are an estimated 7,000 rare diseases, in total affecting approximately 30 million Americans. Most of these are serious conditions with no approved therapies. Rare diseases constitute an enormous unmet medical need.

    Drug development for rare diseases, as well as for common diseases, relies on an indepth knowledge of the diseases' natural histories. Natural history is the course of the disease in the absence of a clinical intervention (that is, treatment under clinical care or study). Natural history knowledge makes possible the design of successful and efficient drug development programs. This knowledge has wide-ranging applications at every stage of drug development, for example, insight into the mechanism of disease, which can inform proof-of-concept studies; development of biomarkers that can expedite clinical studies at every stage of drug development; recognition and understanding of phenotypes of disease that may respond more (or less) to a therapy; and knowledge of the aspects of disease that matter to patients, with an impact on developing drugs that have a meaningful impact on how a patient feels, functions, or survives. The lack of natural history knowledge can result in the failure of drug programs, even for drugs with great promise. Unfortunately, the natural history of rare diseases is often poorly understood.

    Impediments to the understanding of the natural history of a rare disease include the small numbers of patients and the sparse dispersal of clinical experience even among the chief clinical referral centers. The rare disease community is largely composed of small, diverse groups including patient and patient-family support, nonprofit disease groups (including umbrella groups), academic researchers, and small- to medium-sized biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. For most rare diseases there has been no mechanism to systematically collect rare disease knowledge. In addition, it has become increasingly clear that it is vitally important to collect more knowledge from living patients over time, not simply to collect currently available information. This “longitudinal” information about individual patients is invaluable to the design of a drug development program. The rare disease community is in need of a means of collecting and analyzing this knowledge: A natural history database tool.

    B. Research Objectives

    The development of natural history databases will directly further FDA's public health mission. We anticipate that the successful implementation of a natural history database will have profound and far-reaching effects on development of therapies for rare diseases. As a basis for solid natural history knowledge of a disease it may help to make a clinical development program for a candidate therapy appear feasible, and thus a more attractive area to pharmaceutical companies for devoting a portion of their drug discovery resources. This too will lead to greater numbers of therapies for rare diseases.

    C. Eligibility Information

    Only the following organization is eligible to apply: The National Organization for Rare Disorders. NORD is uniquely qualified to apply for this grant as the only applicant. Natural history studies is an area of unmet need and there are very few efforts towards building these studies. Those efforts that exist are very limited to specific diseases (e.g., cystic fibrosis, urea cycle disorders). These individual efforts cannot and do not support other patient groups starting their own studies. Most efforts are largely focused on patient communication and patient reports through Web-based self-reporting and are not likely to conform to sufficient scientific rigor to be able to support drug development. Although patient registries exist, these are not the same thing as natural history studies, and can often be very broad and general and cannot be customized to the depth and scope needed to support multiple natural history studies in a diverse group of rare diseases. The rigor, scope, and flexibility of NORD's platform, which comes from approximately 15 years of working with the rare disease community on these efforts, is unique and directly suited to the needs of FDA.

    II. Award Information/Funds Available A. Award Amount

    FDA/Center for Drug Evaluation and Research intends to fund up to $250,000, for fiscal year 2015 in support of this grant program. It is anticipated that one award will be made, not to exceed $250,000 in total costs (direct plus indirect).

    B. Length of Support

    The maximum project period is 1 year.

    III. Electronic Application, Registration, and Submission

    Only electronic applications will be accepted. To submit an electronic application in response to this FOA, applicants should first review the full announcement located at www.grants.gov. Search by Funding Opportunity Number: RFA-FD-15-038. For all electronically submitted applications, the following steps are required.

    • Step 1: Obtain a Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) Number

    • Step 2: Register With System for Award Management (SAM)

    • Step 3: Obtain Username & Password

    • Step 4: Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) Authorization

    • Step 5: Track AOR Status

    • Step 6: Register With Electronic Research Administration (eRA) Commons

    Steps 1 through 5, in detail, can be found at http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/organization_registration.jsp. Step 6, in detail, can be found at https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/registration/registrationInstructions.jsp. After you have followed these steps, submit electronic applications to http://www.grants.gov.

    Dated: August 10, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20130 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-2735] Scientific Inquiry Into How Mobile Health and Social Data Sources May Inform Medical Product Safety and Efficacy; Public Workshop; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public workshop; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in collaboration with the University of Maryland's Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (M-CERSI) is announcing a public workshop entitled “Scientific Inquiry Into How Mobile Health and Social Data Sources May Inform Medical Product Safety and Efficacy.” The purpose of the public workshop is to discuss important scientific questions about using two of the most ubiquitous and fastest growing data sources, mobile health data and social computing data, focusing especially on the implications for product safety.

    DATES:

    The public workshop will be held on September 11, 2015, from 12:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public workshop will be held at the Adele H. Stamp Student Union, University of Maryland, 1021A Adele H. Stamp Student Union, College Park, MD. For additional travel and hotel information, please refer to: http://go.umd.edu/mobilesocialanalytics.

    Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Regarding this notice: Leslie D. Wheelock, Food and Drug Administration, Office of the Commissioner, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4345, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-8450, FAX: 301-847-8106; email: [email protected]

    Regarding registration: Ann Anonsen, University of Maryland, Fischell Dept. of Bioengineering, 2207 Jeong H. Kim Bldg., College Park, MD 20742, 301-405-0285, FAX: 301-405-9953, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Mobile health and social computing data sources create unique and hitherto unavailable opportunities, but there are important questions that need to be answered. This workshop will bring together thought leaders from industry, academia, and the regulatory communities to reflect on the opportunities and challenges that these new data sources create.

    II. Attendance and Registration

    There is a registration fee to attend this public workshop. The registration fee is charged to help defray the costs for facilities, materials, and food. Seats are limited, and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis. The costs of registration for the different categories of attendees are as follows:

    Category Cost Industry Representatives $50 Charitable Nonprofit/Academic 50 Government/Students 0

    Persons interested in attending this public workshop must register online at http://go.umd.edu/mobilesocialanalytics by September 1, 2015. To register, please refer to: http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/centers-excellence/center-health-information-decision-systems/events/m-cersi-workshop. Early registration is recommended because space is limited. Those without Internet access should contact Ann Anonsen to register (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT regarding registration).

    Attendees are responsible for their own hotel accommodations. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Ann Anonsen, at 301-405-0285 or email: [email protected]

    III. Comments

    Regardless of attendance at the public workshop, interested persons may submit either electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). The deadline for submitting comments related to this public workshop is August 28, 2015. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 10, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20129 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-D-0332] Endotoxin Testing Recommendations for Single-Use Intraocular Ophthalmic Devices; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “Endotoxin Testing Recommendations for Single-Use Intraocular Ophthalmic Devices.” National outbreaks of Toxic Anterior Segment Syndrome (TASS) have been associated with single-use intraocular ophthalmic devices (IODs) and single-use intraocular ophthalmic surgical instruments/accessories that are contaminated with endotoxins. These devices can become contaminated as part of the manufacturing, sterilization, or packaging processes. This guidance document provides recommendations for endotoxin limits as well as endotoxin testing to manufacturers and other entities involved in submitting premarket applications (PMAs) or premarket notification submissions (510(k)s) for different categories of IODs to mitigate future outbreaks of TASS.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at any time. General comments on Agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written requests for a single hard copy of the guidance document entitled “Endotoxin Testing Recommendations for Single-Use Intraocular Ophthalmic Devices” to the Office of the Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request.

    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michelle Tarver, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2504, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5620.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    TASS has been increasing in frequency over the past decade from approximately 1 in 1,000 to about 2 in 100. Some cases of TASS are severe enough to require secondary surgical interventions including glaucoma surgery and corneal transplantation. The use of inadequately or improperly processed ophthalmic surgical instruments is one of many factors suggested as a potential cause of TASS. In many TASS cases, bacterial endotoxin from medical devices is believed to cause the inflammation.

    This guidance document was developed to notify manufacturers and other entities involved in submitting PMAs or 510(k)s for different categories of IODs of the recommended endotoxin limit for the release of IODs and single-use intraocular ophthalmic surgical instruments/accessories in an effort to mitigate future TASS outbreaks.

    The draft of this guidance was made available in the Federal Register on April 17, 2014 (79 FR 21777), and the comment period closed July 16, 2014. Only two sets of comments were received. The comments were minor, and FDA made revisions to the document in response to the comments where appropriate. FDA also removed posterior segment devices from the scope of the guidance document. FDA may address endotoxin testing recommendations for this device type in future guidance documents.

    II. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on endotoxin testing and limits for single-use IODs. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Endotoxin Testing Recommendations for Single-Use Intraocular Ophthalmic Devices” may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1836 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 814 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231.

    V. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20229 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-D-2843] Qualification of Biomarker—Total Kidney Volume in Studies for Treatment of Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Qualification of Biomarker—Total Kidney Volume in Studies for Treatment of Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease.” This draft guidance provides a qualified context of use (COU) for total kidney volume (TKV), measured at baseline, to be used as a prognostic enrichment biomarker to select patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) at high risk for a “progressive decline” in renal function, defined as a confirmed 30 percent decline in the patient's estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), for inclusion in interventional clinical trials. This draft guidance also describes the experimental conditions and constraints for which this biomarker is qualified through the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Biomarker Qualification Program. This biomarker can be used by drug developers for the qualified COU in submissions of investigational new drug applications, new drug applications, and biologics license applications without the relevant CDER review group reconsidering and reconfirming the suitability of the biomarker.

    In the Federal Register of January 7, 2014, FDA announced the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Qualification Process for Drug Development Tools” that described the process that would be used to qualify Drug Development Tools (DDTs) and to make new DDT qualification recommendations available on FDA's Web site. The qualification recommendations in this draft guidance were developed using the process described in that guidance.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by October 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marianne Noone, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (Office of Translational Sciences, Immediate Office), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 21, Rm. 4528, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Qualification of Biomarker—Total Kidney Volume in Studies for Treatment of Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease.” This draft guidance provides qualification recommendations for the use of TKV, measured at baseline, as a prognostic enrichment biomarker to select patients with ADPKD at high risk for a “progressive decline” in renal function, defined as a confirmed 30 percent decline in the patient's eGFR, for inclusion in interventional clinical trials. This biomarker may be used in combination with the patient's age and baseline eGFR as an enrichment factor in these interventional clinical trials. Specifically, this draft guidance provides the COU for which this biomarker is qualified through the CDER Biomarker Qualification Program. Qualification of this biomarker for this specific COU represents the conclusion that analytically valid measurements of the biomarker can be relied on to have a specific use and interpretable meaning. This biomarker can be used by drug developers for the qualified COU in submission of investigational new drug applications, new drug applications, and biologics license applications without the relevant CDER review group reconsidering and reconfirming the suitability of the biomarker. “Qualification” means that the use of this biomarker in the specific COU is not limited to a single, specific drug development program. Making the qualification recommendations widely known and available for use by drug developers will contribute to drug innovation, thus supporting public health.

    In the Federal Register of January 7, 2014 (79 FR 831), FDA announced the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Qualification Process for Drug Development Tools” that described the process that would be used to qualify DDTs and to make new DDT qualification recommendations available on FDA's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm. The current draft guidance is an attachment to that final guidance.

    CDER has initiated this formal qualification process to work with developers of these biomarker DDTs to guide them as they refine and evaluate DDTs for use in the regulatory context. Once qualified, biomarker DDTs will be publicly available for use in any drug development program for the qualified COU. As described in the January 2014 guidance, biomarker DDTs should be developed and reviewed using this process. For more information on FDA's DDTs Qualification Programs, refer to the following Web page: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DrugDevelopmentToolsQualificationProgram/default.htm.

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on the use of TKV, measured at baseline, as a prognostic enrichment biomarker to select patients with ADPKD at high risk for a progressive decline in renal function, defined as a confirmed 30 percent decline in eGFR, for inclusion in interventional clinical trials. This biomarker may be used in combination with patient age and baseline eGFR, as an enrichment factor in these interventional clinical trials. It does not establish any rights for any person and not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance contains an information collection that is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The information collection has been approved under the OMB control numbers 0910-0001 and 0910-0014. The information requested in this guidance is currently submitted to FDA to support medical product effectiveness (see 21 CFR 312.30, 21 CFR 314.50(d)(5), and 21 CFR 314.126(b)(6)).

    III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances