Federal Register Vol. 80, No.159,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 159 (August 18, 2015)

Page Range49887-50187
FR Document

80_FR_159
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 50027 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 50051 - Sunshine Notice-September 10, 2015 Public HearingPDF
80 FR 50068 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Carlo Crivelli” ExhibitionsPDF
80 FR 49945 - Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act: Transmission of Documents and InformationPDF
80 FR 50047 - Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker HealthPDF
80 FR 49909 - Special Local Regulation, Tennessee River 647.0 to 648.0; Knoxville, TNPDF
80 FR 50026 - Proposed Information Collection: Community Harvest Assessments for Alaskan National Parks and PreservesPDF
80 FR 49968 - Special Local Regulation, Tennessee River 463.0 to 467.0; Chattanooga, TNPDF
80 FR 50018 - Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System (NDGPS)PDF
80 FR 50020 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Biometric IdentityPDF
80 FR 49985 - Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA) for the Multifamily Preservation and Revitalization (MPR) Demonstration Program Under Section 514, Section 515, and Section 516 for Fiscal Year 2015PDF
80 FR 49930 - Walnuts Grown in California; Increased Assessment RatePDF
80 FR 50071 - Public Input on Expanding Access to Credit Through Online Marketplace LendingPDF
80 FR 49987 - Certain Woven Electric Blankets From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Sunset Review and Revocation of Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
80 FR 49986 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Correction to the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative ReviewPDF
80 FR 49986 - Authorization of Production Activity; Foreign-Trade Zone 83; Toyota Motor Manufacturing Alabama, Inc., (Motor Vehicle Engines and Transmissions); Huntsville, AlabamaPDF
80 FR 49985 - Foreign-Trade Zone 79-Tampa, Florida; Application for Subzone, Swisscosmet Corporation, New Port Richey, FloridaPDF
80 FR 49985 - Approval of Subzone Status; Toyota Motor Manufacturing Alabama, Inc.; Huntsville, AlabamaPDF
80 FR 49986 - Application for Additional Production Authority; The Coleman Company, Inc.; Subzone 119I; (Textile-Based Personal Flotation Devices) Sauk Rapids, MinnesotaPDF
80 FR 49930 - Farmers' Market Promotion Program Regulation; Withdrawal of a Proposed RulePDF
80 FR 49933 - Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Fluorescent Lamp BallastsPDF
80 FR 50017 - Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 49997 - Meeting of the U.S. Naval Academy Board of VisitorsPDF
80 FR 49997 - Availability of Work Plan Chemical Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment and Data Needs Assessment Documents for Flame Retardant Clusters; Notice and Public Comment PeriodsPDF
80 FR 50049 - Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes: Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 50047 - Records Management; General Records Schedule (GRS); GRS Transmittal 24PDF
80 FR 49994 - National Commission on the Future of the Army; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 50050 - Information Collection: NRC Form 398, “Personal Qualification Statement-Licensee”PDF
80 FR 50005 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 50000 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 50015 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 49997 - Office of Science; Department of Energy; Notice of Renewal of the High Energy Physics Advisory PanelPDF
80 FR 50035 - Arthur H. Bell, D.O.; Decision and OrderPDF
80 FR 50029 - John R. Kregenow, D.D.S.; Decision and OrderPDF
80 FR 50029 - Victor B. Williams, M.D.; Decision and OrderPDF
80 FR 50032 - Nicholas Nardacci, M.D.; Decision and OrderPDF
80 FR 50031 - Ronald A. Green, M.D.; Decision and OrderPDF
80 FR 50034 - Devra Hamilton, N.P.; Decision and OrderPDF
80 FR 50033 - Jeffrey S. Holverson, M.D.; Decision and OrderPDF
80 FR 50042 - Drug Enforcement AdministrationPDF
80 FR 49988 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 49990 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 49988 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 49991 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 49973 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs; CY 2016 Home Health Prospective Payment System Rate Update; Home Health Value-Based Purchasing Model; and Home Health Quality Reporting Requirements; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 50021 - Proposed Information Collection; Control and Management of Resident Canada GeesePDF
80 FR 50024 - Proposed Information Collection; Wolf-Livestock Demonstration Project Grant ProgramPDF
80 FR 49991 - Johnson Health Tech Co. Ltd. and Johnson Health Tech North America, Inc., Provisional Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement and OrderPDF
80 FR 49988 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 50016 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 50017 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 50016 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 50064 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 50055 - Principal ETMF Trust, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 50056 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 49989 - Groundfish Operational Assessment Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 50000 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 50027 - Ironing Tables From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year ReviewPDF
80 FR 49895 - Medical Devices; Cardiovascular Devices; Classification of the Esophageal Thermal Regulation DevicePDF
80 FR 50014 - Electronic Study Data Submission; Data Standards; Support for Study Data Tabulation Model Implementation Guide Version 3.2PDF
80 FR 50046 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Cadmium in General Industry StandardPDF
80 FR 50045 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Authorization for Release of Medical Information for Black Lung BenefitsPDF
80 FR 50013 - Providing Submissions in Electronic Format-Postmarketing Safety Reports for Vaccines; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 49989 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 50069 - Mack Trucks, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
80 FR 50010 - Pilot Program for Medical Device Reporting on MalfunctionsPDF
80 FR 50008 - Select Updates for Non-Clinical Engineering Tests and Recommended Labeling for Intravascular Stents and Associated Delivery Systems; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 50044 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActPDF
80 FR 50009 - Uncomplicated Gonorrhea: Developing Drugs for Treatment; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 50048 - Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
80 FR 50049 - Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
80 FR 49917 - Revisions to Framework Adjustment 53 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and Sector Annual Catch Entitlements; Updated Annual Catch Limits for Sectors and the Common Pool for Fishing Year 2015PDF
80 FR 50026 - Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From China; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year ReviewsPDF
80 FR 49938 - Special Conditions: Cessna Airplane Company Model 680A Airplane, Side-Facing Seats Equipped With Airbag SystemsPDF
80 FR 49892 - Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc. Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 Airplanes; Flight Envelope Protection, High-Speed LimitingPDF
80 FR 49934 - Special Conditions: Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 Airplanes, Side-Stick Controllers; Controllability and ManeuverabilityPDF
80 FR 49936 - Special Conditions: Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 Airplanes, Automatic Speed Protection for Design Dive SpeedPDF
80 FR 49893 - Special Conditions: Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVII-G500 Airplanes; Electronic Flight Control System: Control Surface Position AwarenessPDF
80 FR 49996 - Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory CommitteesPDF
80 FR 50065 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 50065 - South Dakota Disaster #SD-00067PDF
80 FR 50066 - West Virginia Disaster #WV-00041PDF
80 FR 50066 - Missouri Disaster #MO-00076PDF
80 FR 50035 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: IRIX Manufacturing, Inc.PDF
80 FR 50043 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Austin Pharma LLCPDF
80 FR 50041 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Alltech Associates, Inc.PDF
80 FR 50053 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Operation of MidPoint Peg Orders Under Rule 11.8(d)PDF
80 FR 50061 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.PDF
80 FR 50059 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.PDF
80 FR 50057 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee SchedulePDF
80 FR 50032 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Cody Laboratories, Inc.PDF
80 FR 49999 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 50070 - Hazardous Materials: Information Collection ActivitiesPDF
80 FR 50028 - Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom; Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase InvestigationsPDF
80 FR 50067 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Electronic Application for Immigration Visa and Alien Registration.PDF
80 FR 50068 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; AmeriflightPDF
80 FR 49911 - Safety Zones; Eighth Coast Guard District Annual and Recurring Safety Zones UpdatePDF
80 FR 49913 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri, Controlling Emissions During Episodes of High Air Pollution PotentialPDF
80 FR 50053 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 50052 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 49946 - Grants to Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities and Diné CollegePDF
80 FR 50066 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Local U.S. Citizen Skills/Resources SurveyPDF
80 FR 50051 - Submission for OMB Review; Comments RequestPDF
80 FR 50023 - Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge; Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact StatementPDF
80 FR 49887 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1014, Amendment No. 8, Revision 1PDF
80 FR 50043 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS)PDF
80 FR 49970 - Clean Air Act Redesignation Substitute for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; TexasPDF
80 FR 49974 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 2016 Atlantic Shark Commercial Fishing SeasonPDF
80 FR 50073 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Large Coastal and Small Coastal Atlantic Shark Management MeasuresPDF
80 FR 50103 - Pay Ratio DisclosurePDF
80 FR 49956 - Streamlining of Provisions on State Plans for Occupational Safety and HealthPDF
80 FR 49897 - Streamlining of Provisions on State Plans for Occupational Safety and HealthPDF

Issue

80 159 Tuesday, August 18, 2015 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50000-50008 2015-20358 2015-20359 Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES Farmer's Market Promotion Program; Withdrawal, 49930 2015-20384 Walnuts Grown in California: Increased Assessment Rate, 49930-49933 2015-20395 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Rural Housing Service

Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicare and Medicaid Programs: CY 2016 Home Health Prospective Payment System Rate Update; Home Health Value-Based Purchasing Model; and Home Health Quality Reporting Requirements; Correction, 49973-49974 2015-20336 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Eighth Coast Guard District Annual and Recurring Events, 49911-49913 2015-20250 Special Local Regulations: Tennessee River 647.0 to 648.0; Knoxville, TN, 49909-49911 2015-20406 PROPOSED RULES Special Local Regulations: Tennessee River 463.0 to 467.0; Chattanooga, TN, 49968-49970 2015-20403 NOTICES Meetings: Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee, 50017-50018 2015-20378 Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System, 50018-50020 2015-20401 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission NOTICES Settlement Agreements and Orders: Johnson Health Tech Co. Ltd. and Johnson Health Tech North America, Inc., 49991-49994 2015-20332 Defense Department Defense Department See

Engineers Corps

See

Navy Department

NOTICES Charter Renewals: Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees, 49996-49997 2015-20293 Meetings: National Commission on the Future of the Army, 49994-49995 2015-20362
Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Decisions and Orders: Arthur H. Bell, D.O., 50035-50041 2015-20353 Decisions And Orders: Devra Hamilton, N.P., 50034-50035 2015-20348 Decisions and Orders: Jeffrey S. Holverson, M.D., 50033-50034 2015-20346 John R. Kregenow, D.D.S, 50029-50031 2015-20352 Matthew Valentine/Liar Catchers, 50042-50043 2015-20344 Nicholas Nardacci, M.D., 50032-50033 2015-20350 Ronald A. Green, M.D., 50031-50032 2015-20349 Victor B. Williams, M.D., 50029 2015-20351 Importers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Cody Laboratories, Inc., Cody, WY, 50032 2015-20278 Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Alltech Associates, Inc., Deerfield, IL, 50041-50042 2015-20283 Austin Pharma LLC, Round Rock, TX, 50043 2015-20284 IRIX Manufacturing, Inc., Greenville, SC, 50035 2015-20285 Energy Department Energy Department PROPOSED RULES Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, 49933-49934 2015-20381 NOTICES Charter Renewals: High Energy Physics Advisory Panel, 49997 2015-20354 Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System, 50018-50020 2015-20401 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Missouri, Controlling Emissions During Episodes of High Air Pollution Potential, 49913-49916 2015-20249 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Clean Air Act Redesignation Substitute for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; Texas, 49970-49973 2015-20024 NOTICES Work Plan Chemical Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment and Data Needs Assessment Documents for Flame Retardant Clusters, 49997-49999 2015-20370 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc. Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 Airplanes; Flight Envelope Protection, High-Speed Limiting, 49892-49893 2015-20299 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVII-G500 Airplanes; Electronic Flight Control System: Control Surface Position Awareness, 49893-49895 2015-20296 PROPOSED RULES Special Conditions: Cessna Airplane Company Model 680A Airplane, Side-Facing Seats Equipped with Airbag Systems, 49938-49945 2015-20300 Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 Airplanes, Automatic Speed Protection for Design Dive Speed, 49936-49938 2015-20297 Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 Airplanes, Side-Stick Controllers; Controllability and Maneuverability, 49934-49936 2015-20298 NOTICES Petitions for Exemptions; Summaries: Ameriflight, 50068 2015-20253 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49999-50000 2015-20275 Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 50000 2015-20321 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Control and Management of Resident Canada Geese, 50021-50023 2015-20335 Wolf-Livestock Demonstration Project Grant Program, 50024-50025 2015-20334 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 50023-50024 2015-20184 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Medical Devices: Cardiovascular Devices; Classification of the Esophageal Thermal Regulation Device, 49895-49897 2015-20317 NOTICES Guidance: Electronic Study Data Submission; Data Standards; Support for Study Data Tabulation Model Implementation Guide Version 3.2, 50014-50015 2015-20316 Providing Submissions in Electronic Format: Postmarketing Safety Reports for Vaccines, 50013-50014 2015-20312 Select Updates for Non-Clinical Engineering Tests and Recommended Labeling for Intravascular Stents and Associated Delivery Systems, 50008-50009 2015-20308 Uncomplicated Gonorrhea: Developing Drugs for Treatment, 50009-50010 2015-20306 Requests for Nominations: Pilot Program for Medical Device Reporting on Malfunctions, 50010-50013 2015-20309 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Approvals of Subzone Status: Toyota Motor Manufacturing Alabama, Inc., Huntsville, AL, 49985 2015-20386 Production Activities: Toyota Motor Manufacturing Alabama, Inc.; Foreign-Trade Zone 83, Huntsville, AL, 49986 2015-20389 Production Authority Applications: Coleman Co., Inc., Subzone 119I, Sauk Rapids, MN, 49986 2015-20385 Subzone Applications: Swisscosmet Corp., Foreign-Trade Zone 79, Tampa, FL, 49985-49986 2015-20388 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50015-50016 2015-20357
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau PROPOSED RULES Grants to Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities and Dine College, 49946-49955 2015-20242 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

National Park Service

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Woven Electric Blankets from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Sunset Review, 49987 2015-20393 Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China, 49986-49987 2015-20390 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, 50028-50029 2015-20266 Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year Review, 50026-50027 2015-20301 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Ironing Tables from China, 50027-50028 2015-20318 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 50027 2015-20503 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Motor Vehicle Title Information System, 50043-50044 2015-20048 Proposed Consent Decrees under CERCLA, 50044-50045 2015-20307
Labor Department Labor Department See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

See

Workers Compensation Programs Office

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Authorization for Release of Medical Information for Black Lung Benefits, 50045-50046 2015-20314 Cadmium in General Industry Standard, 50046-50047 2015-20315
National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Records Management: General Records Schedule; GRS Transmittal 24, 50047-50048 2015-20363 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Petitions for Decisions of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Mack Trucks, Inc., 50069-50070 2015-20310 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Cancer Institute, 50016-50017 2015-20328 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 50016 2015-20330 National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 50017 2015-20329 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Large Coastal and Small Coastal Atlantic Shark Management Measures, 50074-50102 2015-19914 Revisions to Framework Adjustment 53 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and Sector Annual Catch Entitlements: Updated Annual Catch Limits for Sectors and the Common Pool for Fishing Year 2015, 49917-49929 2015-20303 PROPOSED RULES Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Atlantic Shark Commercial Fishing Season, 49974-49984 2015-19915 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49988 2015-20331 Meetings: Groundfish Operational Assessment, 49989 2015-20322 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 49989-49990 2015-20311 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 49988 2015-20339 New England Fishery Management Council, 2015-20338 49988-49991 2015-20340 2015-20341 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 49991 2015-20337 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Community Harvest Assessments for Alaskan National Parks and Preserves, 50026 2015-20404 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Antarctic Conservation Act Permit Applications, 2015-20304 50048-50049 2015-20305 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Meetings: U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors, 49997 2015-20376 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1014, Amendment No. 8, Revision 1, 49887-49892 2015-20141 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Personal Qualification Statement—Licensee, 50050-50051 2015-20360 Meetings: Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes, 50049-50050 2015-20364 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration RULES State Plans for Occupational Safety and Health, 49897-49909 2015-19225 PROPOSED RULES State Plans for Occupational Safety and Health, 49956-49968 2015-19226 Overseas Overseas Private Investment Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50051-50052 2015-20223 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 50051 2015-20466 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Hazardous Materials, 50070-50071 2015-20274 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 50052-50053 2015-20246 2015-20247 Rural Housing Service Rural Housing Service NOTICES Applications: Multifamily Preservation and Revitalization Demonstration Program for Fiscal Year 2015, 49985 2015-20399 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Pay Ratio Disclosure, 50104-50187 2015-19600 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2015-20327 50056-50057, 50064-50065 2015-20324 2015-20325 Applications: Principal ETMF Trust, et al., 50055-50056 2015-20326 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 50061-50064 2015-20281 BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., 50059-50061 2015-20280 BOX Options Exchange, LLC, 50057-50059 2015-20279 EDGA Exchange, Inc., 50053-50055 2015-20282 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50065 2015-20291 Disaster Declarations: Missouri, 50066 2015-20287 South Dakota, 50065 2015-20290 West Virginia, 50066 2015-20288 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Electronic Application for Immigration Visa and Alien Registration, 50067-50068 2015-20261 Local U.S. Citizen Skills/Resources Survey, 50066-50067 2015-20239 Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Carlo Crivelli Exhibitions, 50068 2015-20423 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

NOTICES Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System, 50018-50020 2015-20401
Treasury Treasury Department NOTICES Online Marketplace Lending; Public Input on Expanding Access to Credit, 50071-50072 2015-20394 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Biometric Identity, 50020-50021 2015-20400 Workers' Workers Compensation Programs Office PROPOSED RULES Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act: Transmission of Documents and Information, 49945-49946 2015-20422 NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health, 50047 2015-20408 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 50074-50102 2015-19914 Part III Securities and Exchange Commission, 50104-50187 2015-19600 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.

80 159 Tuesday, August 18, 2015 Rules and Regulations NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [NRC-2014-0233] RIN 3150-AJ47 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1014, Amendment No. 8, Revision 1 AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to add Revision 1 to Amendment No. 8 (effective May 2, 2012, as corrected on November 16, 2012), to the Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1014. Amendment No. 8, Revision 1, changes burnup/cooling time limits for thimble plug devices, changes Metamic-HT material testing requirements, changes Metamic-HT material minimum guaranteed values, and updates fuel definitions to allow boiling water reactor fuel affected by certain corrosion mechanisms with specific guidelines to be classified as undamaged fuel.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on February 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0233 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-2014-0233. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vanessa Cox, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-8342; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents I. Background II. Discussion of Changes III. Public Comment Analysis IV. Voluntary Consensus Standards V. Agreement State Compatibility VI. Plain Writing VII. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement IX. Regulatory Analysis X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification XI. Backfitting and Issue Finality XII. Congressional Review Act XIII. Availability of Documents I. Background

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule in part 72 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), which added a new subpart K within 10 CFR part 72 entitled, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled, “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on May 1, 2000 (65 FR 25241), that approved the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214 as CoC No. 1014.

The NRC published a direct final rule on this revision to this amendment in the Federal Register on February 5, 2015 (80 FR 6430). The NRC also concurrently published a companion proposed rule on February 5, 2015 (80 FR 6466). The NRC received at least one significant adverse comment on the proposed rule; therefore, the NRC withdrew the direct final rule on April 20, 2015 (80 FR 21639), and is proceeding, in this document, to address the comments on the proposed rule (see Section III, “Public Comment Analysis,” of this document).

II. Discussion of Changes

By letter dated August 21, 2013, and as supplemented on December 20, 2013, and February 28, 2014, Holtec International submitted a revision request for the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System, CoC No. 1014, Amendment No. 8. As a revision, the CoC will supersede the previous version of the CoC and Technical Specifications (TSs) that were effective May 2, 2012, as corrected on November 16, 2012, in their entirety. Amendment No. 8, Revision 1, changes burnup/cooling time limits for thimble plug devices, changes Metamic-HT material testing requirements, changes Metamic-HT material minimum guaranteed values, and updates fuel definitions to allow boiling water reactor fuel affected by certain corrosion mechanisms within specific guidelines to be classified as undamaged fuel.

As documented in the safety evaluation report (SER), the NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC amendment request. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the proposed CoC amendment. Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of containment, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would not be significant. This revision does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 8, Revision 1, would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Therefore, the proposed CoC changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in individual or cumulative radiation exposure and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences of radiological accidents.

This final rule revises the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System listing in 10 CFR 72.214 by adding Amendment No. 8, Revision 1, to CoC No. 1014. The revision consists of the changes previously described, as set forth in the revised CoC and TSs. The revised TSs are identified in the SER. The revised Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System design, when used under the conditions specified in the CoC, the TSs, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. When this final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under 10 CFR 72.210 may load SNF into the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask Systems that meets the criteria of Amendment No. 8, Revision 1, to CoC No. 1014 under 10 CFR 72.212.

III. Public Comment Analysis

The NRC received 16 comments from private citizens on the companion proposed rule to the direct final rule published on February 5, 2015. The NRC has not made any changes to the TSs or SER as a result of the public comments that the NRC has received. The NRC has, however, extended the effective date of the CoC in response to a comment.

Summary of Comments

The NRC received 16 comments on the companion proposed rule, many raising multiple and overlapping issues. Because the NRC received at least one significant adverse comment on the proposed rule (raising issues that the NRC deemed serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify the record), the NRC withdrew the direct final rule and is responding to the comments here. Other comments were not considered to be significant adverse comments because, in most instances, they were beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Nonetheless, in addition to responding to the issues raised in the significant adverse comments, the NRC is also taking this opportunity to respond to some of the issues raised in the comments that are beyond the scope of this rulemaking in order to clarify information about the CoC rulemaking process related to the comments received. The comments are summarized by issue and the NRC's responses follow.

Issue 1—Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel

Several comments objected to the storage of SNF at the Indian Point nuclear plant and its proximity to New York City, and other comments objected to the storage of SNF, at any location, without a final repository approved.

NRC Response

The concern of SNF storage at the Indian Point nuclear plant, as well as the concern regarding the need for a final repository, are generic in nature and are not applicable to the HI-STORM Cask System, Amendment No. 8, Revision 1. This rulemaking is limited to allowing persons who hold a general license under 10 CFR 72.210 to load SNF into the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask Systems if doing so meets the criteria of Amendment No. 8, Revision 1, to CoC No. 1014 under 10 CFR 72.212.

Issue 2—Change in Definition

Some comments also questioned the NRC's approval that SNF with certain types of corrosion fit within the definition of undamaged fuel. Some comments indicated that there was no explanation for this change in the definition. Another comment identified the concern with the change in the definition of undamaged fuel, as well as concerns with a variety of issues surrounding the manufacturing and use of this Holtec CoC cask system.

NRC Response

The inclusion of certain types of SNF corrosion in the undamaged fuel definition was addressed in detail in the NRC staff's SER which was referenced in the direct final rule published on February 5, 2015 (80 FR 6430), as was the staff's basis for determining that this CoC, as revised, complies with the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 72 and therefore, the revision ensures adequate protection of public health and safety. While these comments oppose the rule, they do not raise relevant or specific issues that were not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.

Issue 3—Other Agencies

One comment questioned why the NRC did not include other agencies in its Environmental Assessment (EA).

NRC Response

As explained in the direct final rule published on February 5, 2015 (80 FR 6430), the NRC determined that “the proposed CoC changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in individual or cumulative radiation exposure and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences of radiological accidents.” Therefore, no consultation was deemed necessary.

Issue 4—Time Allowed for Comments

Several comments objected to the time allowed by the NRC to provide comments on the companion proposed rule.

NRC Response

These comments do not provide any specific adverse comments on the companion proposed rule. Instead the comments cite concerns with the process used to issue the certificates. The NRC has determined that the amount of time provided for the submission of comments on a rule of this nature is reasonable, and the comments provide no specific details that would result in a change to that determination.

Issue 5—Implementation Period

Although not commenting on the technical details of the rule, one commenter requested that the NRC consider a 180-day implementation period for the revision to HI-STORM 100 Cask System, Amendment No. 8, to allow general licensees time to incorporate any applicable administrative changes.

NRC Response

The NRC determined that this comment is significant and adverse as defined in Section II, “Procedural Background,” of the direct final rule, because the comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record.

A revision to a CoC amendment supersedes that specific amendment. Therefore, as the commenter indicates, any general licensee using the system authorized by this specific CoC amendment would have to update their records pursuant to 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) to that of the revised system by the effective date of this revision.

At the time the application was submitted, according to the applicant, no casks subject to the amendment had been manufactured, and therefore, this was not an issue. However, as of February 5, 2015, upon publication of the direct final rule, several canisters manufactured under CoC No. 1014, Amendment No. 8 have been purchased and delivered to Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon Generation), at its Dresden Nuclear Power Plant.

Given this change in circumstance, the NRC is revising the effective date of the revision to Amendment No. 8 of CoC 1014 to February 16, 2016,180 days from August 18, 2015, thereby providing more time for the general licensee to prepare the necessary paperwork pursuant to 10 CFR 72.212 before this revision becomes effective. Because this revision will supersede Amendment No. 8 in its entirety, the general licensee will have to be in compliance with 10 CFR 72.212 once this revision becomes effective.

IV. Voluntary Consensus Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this final rule, the NRC will revise the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System design listing in 10 CFR 72.214. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

V. Agreement State Compatibility

Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), this final rule is classified as Compatibility Category “NRC.” Compatibility is not required for Category “NRC” regulations. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the provisions of 10 CFR. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to the NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements via a mechanism that is consistent with the particular State's administrative procedure laws, but does not confer regulatory authority on the State.

VI. Plain Writing

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274), requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).

VII. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact A. The Action

The action is to amend 10 CFR 72.214 to revise the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System design listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to revise Amendment No. 8 (effective May 2, 2012, as corrected on November 16, 2012), of CoC No. 1014 by adding Amendment No. 8, Revision 1. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC has determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has made a finding of no significant impact on the basis of this environmental assessment.

B. The Need for the Action

This final rule revises an amendment of the CoC for the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. Specifically, Amendment No. 8, Revision 1, changes burnup/cooling time limits for thimble plug devices, changes Metamic-HT material testing requirements, changes Metamic-HT material minimum guaranteed values, and updates fuel definitions to allow boiling water reactor fuel affected by certain corrosion mechanisms within specific guidelines to be classified as undamaged fuel.

C. Environmental Impacts of the Action

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was initially analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule. The environmental assessment for this CoC addition tiers off of the environmental assessment for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System is designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.

Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of containment, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would not be significant. This revision does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. In addition, because there are no significant design or production process changes, any resulting occupational exposures or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 8, Revision 1, would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Therefore, the proposed CoC changes will not result in either radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in individual or cumulative radiation exposures, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. The NRC staff documented its safety findings in the SER for this revision.

D. Alternative to the Action

The alternative to this action is to deny approval of the changes in Amendment No. 8, Revision 1, and terminate the final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load SNF into the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System in accordance with the changes described in proposed Amendment No. 8, Revision 1, would have to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, interested licensees would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden on the NRC and the cost to each licensee. Therefore, the environmental impacts would be the same or less than the action.

E. Alternative Use of Resources

Approval of Amendment No. 8, Revision 1, of CoC No. 1014 would result in no irreversible commitments of resources.

F. Agencies and Persons Contacted

No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.

G. Finding of No Significant Impact

The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in 10 CFR part 51. Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this final rule entitled, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1014, Amendment No. 8, Revision 1,” will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this final rule.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This rule does not contain any information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of 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 document displays a current valid Office of Management and Budget control number.

IX. Regulatory Analysis

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of SNF under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store SNF if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in 10 CFR 72.214. On May 1, 2000 (65 FR 25241), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System design by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214.

On August 21, 2013, and as supplemented on December 20, 2013, and February 28, 2014, Holtec International submitted a revision request for the HI-STORM 100 Cask System, CoC No. 1014, Amendment No. 8, as described in Section II, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document.

The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of the changes requested in Amendment No. 8, Revision 1, and require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load SNF into the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System under the changes described in Amendment No. 8, Revision 1, to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden on the NRC and the costs to each affected licensee.

Approval of this final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the SER and the EA, the final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other Government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of the final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and therefore, this action is recommended.

X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and Holtec International. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).

XI. Backfitting and Issue Finality

For the reasons set forth below, the NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this final rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. This final rule revises CoC No. 1014 for the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System, as currently listed in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” Amendment No. 8, Revision 1, changes burnup/cooling time limits for thimble plug devices, changes Metamic-HT material testing requirements, changes Metamic-HT material minimum guaranteed values, and updates fuel definitions to allow boiling water reactor fuel affected by certain corrosion mechanisms within specific guidelines to be classified as undamaged fuel.

At the time the application was submitted, Holtec International indicated that no casks had been manufactured under this revision, but as of publication of the direct final rule, casks had been manufactured and delivered to a general licensee. Although Holtec International has manufactured some casks under the existing CoC No. 1014, Amendment No. 8 that is being revised by this final rule, Holtec International, as the vendor, is not subject to backfitting protection under 10 CFR 72.62. Moreover, Holtec International requested the change and has requested to apply it to the existing casks manufactured under Amendment No. 8. Therefore, even if the vendor were deemed to be an entity protected from backfitting, this request represents a voluntary change and is not backfitting for Holtec International.

Under 10 CFR 72.62, general licensees are entities that are protected from backfitting, and in this instance, Holtec International has provided casks under CoC No. 1014, Amendment No. 8, to one general licensee. General licensees are required, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.212, to ensure that each cask conforms to the terms, conditions, and specifications of a CoC, and that each cask can be safely used at the specific site in question. Because the casks purchased and delivered under CoC No. 1014 Amendment No. 8, now must be evaluated under 10 CFR 72.212 consistent with the revisions in CoC No. 1014 Amendment 8, Revision 1, this change in the evaluation method and criteria constitutes a change in a procedure required to operate an ISFSI and, therefore, would constitute backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62(a)(2). However, in this instance, the general licensee voluntarily indicated its willingness to comply with the revised CoC, as long as the general licensee is provided adequate time to implement the revised CoC (see ADAMS No. ML15170A439). This final rule accommodates that request by extending the effective date for the final rule to February 16, 2016, 180 days from August 18, 2015. Therefore, although the general licensee is an entity protected from backfitting, this request represents a voluntary change and is not backfitting for this general licensee.

In addition, the changes in CoC No. 1014, Amendment No. 8, Revision 1 do not apply to casks which were manufactured to other amendments of CoC No. 1014, and, therefore, have no effect on current ISFSI licensees using casks which were manufactured to other amendments of CoC No. 1014. For these reasons, NRC approval of CoC No. 1014, Amendment No. 8, Revision 1, does not constitute backfitting for users of the HI-STORM 100 Cask System which were manufactured to other amendments of CoC No. 1014, under 10 CFR 72.62, 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), or the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52.

For the reasons set forth above, no backfit analysis or additional documentation addressing the issue finality criteria in 10 CFR part 52 has been prepared by the NRC.

XII. Congressional Review Act

In accordance with the Congressional Review Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801-808), the NRC has determined that this action is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

XIII. Availability of Documents

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.

Document ADAMS Accession No. CoC No. 1014, Amendment No. 8, Revision 1 ML14262A478 Safety Evaluation Report ML14262A476 Technical Specifications, Appendix A ML14262A480 Technical Specifications, Appendix B ML14262A479 Application (portions are non-public/proprietary) ML13235A082 December 20, 2013, Application Supplement ML14009A271 February 28, 2014, Application Supplement ML14064A344

The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2014-0233. The Federal Rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2014-0233); (2) click the “Sign up for Email Alerts” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72

Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear energy, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Whistleblowing.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:

PART 72—LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

2. In § 72.214, Certificate of Compliance No. 1014 is revised to read as follows:
§ 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks.

Certificate Number: 1014.

Initial Certificate Effective Date: May 31, 2000.

Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: July 15, 2002.

Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: June 7, 2005.

Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: May 29, 2007.

Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: January 8, 2008.

Amendment Number 5 Effective Date: July 14, 2008.

Amendment Number 6 Effective Date: August 17, 2009.

Amendment Number 7 Effective Date: December 28, 2009.

Amendment Number 8 Effective Date: May 2, 2012, as corrected on November 16, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12213A170); superseded by Revision 1 Effective Date: February 16, 2016.

Amendment Number 8, Revision 1 Effective Date: February 16, 2016.

Amendment Number 9 Effective Date: March 11, 2014.

SAR Submitted by: Holtec International.

SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis.

Report for the HI-STORM 100 Cask System.

Docket Number: 72-1014.

Certificate Expiration Date: May 31, 2020.

Model Number: HI-STORM 100.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of August, 2015.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Michael R. Johnson, Acting Executive Director for Operation.
[FR Doc. 2015-20141 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2015-2002; Special Conditions No. 25-593-SC] Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc. Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 Airplanes; Flight Envelope Protection, High-Speed Limiting AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Bombardier Inc. Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Bombardier Inc. on August 18, 2015. We must receive your comments by October 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-2002 using any of the following methods:

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

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

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected airplanes.

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

Comments Invited

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

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

Background

On May 30, 2012, Bombardier Aerospace Inc. applied for a type certificate for their new Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes. These airplanes are derivatives of the Model BD-700 series airplanes. These two models are marketed as the Bombardier Global 7000 and Global 8000, respectively. These are ultra-long-range, executive-interior business jets, with a maximum certified passenger capacity of 19.

The Global 7000 and Global 8000 airplanes will be assembled without a completed interior in Toronto, Ontario, and flight tested at the Bombardier Flight Test Center in Wichita, Kansas. Like the existing BD-700 airplanes, Global 7000 and Global 8000 custom passenger interiors and airplane delivery will be provided from Montreal, Quebec, via supplemental type certificate.

The Global 7000 and Global 8000 share an identical supplier base and significant design-element commonality, the highlights of which are:

• Two GE PassportTM 20 aft-mounted engines • New high-speed transonic wing • Fly-by-wire control system with side-stick controls • Pro Line Fusion® avionics suite

Both the Model BD-700-2A12 and -2A13 airplanes have a wingspan of 104.1 feet, a height of 26.7 feet, a maximum operating altitude of 51,000 feet, a maximum operating speed of 340 knots, and a maximum fuselage diameter of 8.84 feet. The BD-700-2A12 is 111.9 feet long, with a maximum take-off weight of 106,250 pounds; and the -2A13 is 102.9 feet in length at 104,800 pounds.

The longitudinal control-law design of both airplane designs incorporate a high-speed protection system in the normal mode; this would prevent the pilot from inadvertently or intentionally exceeding a speed approximately equivalent to VFC or attaining VDF. Current Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 sections do not relate to a high-speed limiter that might preclude or modify flying-qualities assessments in the high-speed region.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Bombardier Inc. must show that the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes meet the applicable provisions of part 25 as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-129.

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

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

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

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

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Bombardier Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

An electronic flight-control system that contains fly-by-wire control laws, including envelope protections, for high-speed protection functions. Current part 25 requirements do not contain appropriate standards for high-speed protection systems.

Discussion

Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes are equipped with a high-speed protection system, which, when the system detects airspeed exceeding a small tolerance above VMO/MMO, employs a high-speed limiter to automatically deploy multifunction spoilers (MFS) as speed brakes. The MFS retract automatically when the system detects that airspeed is sufficiently reduced.

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

Applicability

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

Conclusion

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on Bombardier Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Bombardier Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes. The requirements of § 25.253 (high-speed characteristics), and its related policy, are applicable to the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 airplanes, and are not affected by these special conditions.

In addition to § 25.143, the following requirement applies:

Operation of the high-speed limiter during all routine and descent procedure flight must not impede normal attainment of speeds up to high-speed warning.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 7, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-20299 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0311; Special Conditions No. 25-592-SC] Special Conditions: Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVII-G500 Airplanes; Electronic Flight Control System: Control Surface Position Awareness AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions, request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplanes. These airplanes have a novel or unusual design feature associated with control-surface awareness provided by the electronic flight-control system. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Gulfstream on August 18, 2015. We must receive your comments by October 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-0311 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joe Jacobsen, FAA, Airplane and Flightcrew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2011; facsimile (425) 227-1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected airplanes.

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

Background

On March 29, 2012, Gulfstream applied for a type certificate for their new Model GVII-G500 airplane. This airplane is a large-cabin business jet capable of accommodating up to 19 passengers. It will incorporate a low, swept-wing design with winglets and a T-tail. The powerplant will consist of two aft-fuselage mounted Pratt & Whitney turbofan engines. Avionics will include four primary display units and multiple touchscreen controllers. The flight-control system is a three-axis, fly-by-wire system controlled through active control/coupled side sticks.

The Model GVII-G500 airplane will have a wingspan of approximately 87 ft. and a length of just over 91 ft. Maximum takeoff weight will be approximately 76,850 lbs and maximum takeoff thrust will be approximately 15,135 lbs. Maximum range will be approximately 5,000 nm and maximum operating altitude will be 51,000 ft.

In airplanes with electronic flight-control systems, a direct correspondence between pilot-control position and the associated airplane control-surface position is not always apparent. Under certain circumstances, a commanded maneuver that may not involve a large flightcrew-control input may nevertheless require a large control-surface movement to accomplish, possibly encroaching on a control-surface or actuation-system limit without the flightcrew's knowledge. This situation can arise in both piloted (i.e., manual) and autopilot flight, and may be further intensified on airplanes where the pilot controls are not back-driven during autopilot system operation.

These special conditions for control-surface awareness, applicable to Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplanes, require suitable flight-control-position annunciation and control-system mode of operation to be provided to the flightcrew when a flight condition exists in which nearly full surface authority (not crew-commanded) is being utilized. Suitability of such a display must take into account that some pilot-demanded maneuvers (e.g., rapid roll) are necessarily associated with intended full performance, which may saturate the surface. Therefore, simple alerting systems, which would function in both intended or unexpected control-limiting situations, must be properly balanced between needed crew awareness and nuisance features. A monitoring system that might compare airplane motion, surface deflection, and pilot side-stick controller (SSC) demand, could be useful for elimination of nuisance alerting.

Type Certification Basis

Under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Gulfstream must show that the Model GVII-G500 airplane meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-137.

In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections of the applicable part that are not relevant to these special conditions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model GVII-G500 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under § 21.16.

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36; and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

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

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplane incorporates the following novel or unusual design features: Electronic flight-control system providing control-surface awareness to the flightcrew.

Discussion

Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation is intending to utilize an electronic flight-control system (including side-stick controllers for pitch and roll control) in their new Model GVII-G500 airplane. With an electronic flight-control system and no direct coupling from the flightdeck controller to the control surface, the pilot may not be aware of the actual surface position utilized to fulfill the requested demand. Some unusual flight conditions, arising from atmospheric conditions, airplane malfunctions, or engine failures, may result in full or nearly full control-surface deflection. Unless the flightcrew is made aware of excessive deflection or impending control-surface limiting, piloted or auto-flight system control of the airplane might be inadvertently continued in such a manner as to cause loss of airplane control, or other unsafe stability or performance characteristics.

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

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions apply to Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplanes. Should Gulfstream apply later for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplanes.

In addition to the requirements of §§ 25.143, 25.671, 25.672, and 25.1322, when a flight condition exists where, without being commanded by the crew, control surfaces are coming so close to their limits that return to the normal flight envelope, or continuation of safe flight, or both, requires a specific crew action, a suitable flight-control-position annunciation must be provided to the crew, unless other existing indications are found adequate or sufficient to prompt that action.

Note:

The term “suitable” indicates an appropriate balance between necessary operation and nuisance factors.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 7, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-20296 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 870 [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-2723] Medical Devices; Cardiovascular Devices; Classification of the Esophageal Thermal Regulation Device AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Final order.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the esophageal thermal regulation device 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 esophageal thermal regulation device'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 August 18, 2015. The classification was applicable on June 23, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lydia Glaw, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1102, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1456, [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 postamendments 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), the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. 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 May 8, 2014, Advanced Cooling Therapy, LLC, submitted a request for classification of the Esophageal Cooling Device 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 could 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 23, 2015, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 870.5910.

Following the effective date of this final classification order, any firm submitting a premarket notification (510(k)) for an esophageal thermal regulation device will need to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The device is assigned the generic name esophageal thermal regulation device, and it is identified as a prescription device used to apply a specified temperature to the endoluminal surface of the esophagus via an external controller. This device may incorporate a mechanism for gastric decompression and suctioning. The device is used to regulate patient temperature.

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

Table 1—Esophageal Thermal Regulation Device Risks and Mitigation Measures Identified risk Mitigation measure Adverse tissue reaction Biocompatibility testing. Gastric distension Non-clinical performance evaluation.
  • Labeling.
  • Injury to the esophagus Non-clinical performance evaluation.
  • Animal testing.
  • Labeling.
  • Harmful hypo/hyperthermia Non-clinical performance evaluation.
  • Animal testing.
  • Labeling.
  • Injury to the trachea Labeling.

    FDA believes that the following special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness:

    • The patient contacting materials must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.

    • Non-clinical performance evaluation must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be tested:

    ○ Mechanical integrity testing;

    ○ Testing to determine temperature change rate(s);

    ○ Testing to demonstrate compatibility with the indicated external controller; and

    ○ Shelf life testing.

    • Animal testing must demonstrate that the device does not cause esophageal injury and that body temperature remains within appropriate boundaries under anticipated conditions of use.

    • Labeling must include the following:

    ○ Detailed insertion instructions;

    ○ Warning against attaching the device to unintended connections, such as external controllers for which the device is not indicated, or pressurized air outlets instead of vacuum outlets for those devices, including gastric suction;

    ○ The operating parameters, name, and model number of the indicated external controller; and

    ○ The intended duration of use.

    Esophageal thermal regulation devices 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 esophageal thermal regulation device 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. DEN140018: De Novo Request per 513(f)(2) from Advanced Cooling Therapy, LLC, dated May 8, 2014. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 870

    Medical devices.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 870 is amended as follows:

    PART 870—CARDIOVASCULAR DEVICES 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 870 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    2. Add § 870.5910 to subpart F to read as follows:
    § 870.5910 Esophageal thermal regulation device.

    (a) Identification. An esophageal thermal regulation device is a prescription device used to apply a specified temperature to the endoluminal surface of the esophagus via an external controller. This device may incorporate a mechanism for gastric decompression and suctioning. The device is used to regulate patient temperature.

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

    (1) The patient contacting materials must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.

    (2) Non-clinical performance evaluation must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be tested:

    (i) Mechanical integrity testing.

    (ii) Testing to determine temperature change rate(s).

    (iii) Testing to demonstrate compatibility with the indicated external controller.

    (iv) Shelf life testing.

    (3) Animal testing must demonstrate that the device does not cause esophageal injury and that body temperature remains within appropriate boundaries under anticipated conditions of use.

    (4) Labeling must include the following:

    (i) Detailed insertion instructions.

    (ii) Warning against attaching the device to unintended connections, such as external controllers for which the device is not indicated, or pressurized air outlets instead of vacuum outlets for those devices, including gastric suction.

    (iii) The operating parameters, name, and model number of the indicated external controller.

    (iv) The intended duration of use.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20317 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Parts 1902, 1903, 1904, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956 [Docket No. OSHA-2014-0009] RIN 1218-AC76 Streamlining of Provisions on State Plans for Occupational Safety and Health AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This document primarily amends OSHA regulations to remove the detailed descriptions of State plan coverage, purely historical data, and other unnecessarily codified information. In addition, this document moves most of the general provisions of subpart A of part 1952 into part 1902, where the general regulations on State plan criteria are found. It also amends several other OSHA regulations to delete references to part 1952, which will no longer apply. The purpose of these revisions is to eliminate the unnecessary codification of material in the Code of Federal Regulations and thus save the time and funds currently expended in publicizing State plan revisions. The streamlining of OSHA State plan regulations does not change the areas of coverage or any other substantive components of any State plan. It also does not affect the rights and responsibilities of the State plans, or any employers or employees, except to eliminate the burden on State plan designees to keep paper copies of approved State plans and plan supplements in an office, and to submit multiple copies of proposed State plan documents to OSHA. This document also contains a request for comments for an Information Collection Request (ICR) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), which covers all collection of information requirements in OSHA State plan regulations.

    DATES:

    This direct final rule is effective October 19, 2015. Comments and additional materials (including comments on the information-collection (paperwork) determination described under the section titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this document) must be submitted (post-marked, sent or received) by September 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number OSHA-2014-0009, or regulatory information number (RIN) 1218-AC76 by any of the following methods:

    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on-line for making electronic submissions; or

    Fax: If your submission, including attachments, does not exceed 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648; or

    U.S. mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger or courier service: You must submit your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No OSHA-2014-0009, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2350 (OSHA's TTY number is (877) 889-5627). Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger and courier service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., EST.

    Instructions for submitting comments: All submissions must include the Docket Number (Docket No. OSHA-2014-0009) or the RIN number (RIN 1218-AC76) for this rulemaking. Because of security-related procedures, submission by regular mail may result in significant delay. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security procedures for making submissions by hand delivery, express delivery and messenger or courier service.

    All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, caution should be taken in submitting personal information, such as Social Security numbers and birth dates.

    Docket: To read or download submissions in response to this Federal Register document, go to docket number OSHA-2014-0009, at http://www.regulations.gov. All submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index: However, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through that Web page. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office.

    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available at http://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases and other relevant information, is available at OSHA's Web page at http://www.osha.gov. A copy of the documents referenced in this document may be obtained from: Office of State Programs, Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3700, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, (202) 693-2244, fax (202) 693-1671.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For press inquiries: Francis Meilinger, OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1999; email: [email protected]

    For general and technical information: Douglas J. Kalinowski, Director, OSHA Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs, Room N-3700, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2200; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act), 29 U.S.C. 667, provides that States that desire to assume responsibility for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health standards may do so by submitting, and obtaining federal approval of, a State plan. States may obtain approval for plans that cover private-sector employers and State and local government employers (comprehensive plans) or for plans that only cover State and local government employers.

    From time to time changes are made to these State plans, particularly with respect to the issues which they cover. Procedures for approval of and changes to comprehensive State plans are set forth in the regulations at 29 CFR part 1902 and 29 CFR part 1953. A description of each comprehensive State plan has previously been set forth in 29 CFR part 1952, subparts C-FF. These descriptions have contained the following sections: Description of the plan, Developmental schedule, Completion of developmental steps and certifications, Staffing benchmarks, Final approval determination (if applicable), Level of Federal enforcement, Location where the State plan may be physically inspected, and Changes to approved plan.

    Procedures for approval of a State plan covering State and local government employees only are set forth in the regulations at 29 CFR part 1956, subparts A-C. Pursuant to 29 CFR 1956.21, procedures for changes to these State plans are also governed by 29 CFR part 1953. A description of each State plan for State and local government employees only has previously been set forth in 29 CFR part 1956, subparts E-I. These subparts have contained the following sections: Description of the plan as certified (or as initially approved), Developmental schedule, Completed developmental steps and certification (if applicable), and Location of basic State plan documentation.

    The area of coverage of each State plan has previously been codified at 29 CFR part 1952 under each State's subpart within the sections entitled “Final approval determination” and “Level of Federal enforcement,” and in 29 CFR part 1956 within the section on the description of the plan. Therefore, any change to a State plan's coverage or other part of the State plan description contained in 29 CFR part 1952 or 29 CFR part 1956 has thus far necessitated an amendment to the language of the CFR, which has required the expenditure of additional time and resources, such as those needed for printing. Furthermore, reprinting parts 1952 and 1956 in the annual CFR publication has necessitated the expenditure of additional time and resources. The individual descriptions of the State plans consisted of 103 pages in the July 1, 2013 revision of title 29, part 1927 to end, of the CFR. For these reasons, OSHA is streamlining parts 1952 and 1956 to delete the detailed descriptions of State plan coverage, purely historical data, and other unnecessarily codified information, thus saving time and funds currently expended in publishing changes to these parts of the CFR.

    There is no legal statutory requirement that individual State plans be described in the CFR. The CFR is a codification of the documents of each agency of the Government having general applicability and legal effect, issued or promulgated by the agency in the Federal Register. 44 U.S.C. 1510(a) and (b). The description of a State plan is not a document of general applicability; it only applies to a particular State. Nevertheless, in this document, OSHA sets forth brief descriptions of each State plan that will be retained in the CFR in part 1952 in order to make this information readily available to those conducting legal research and relying on the CFR. Brief descriptions of comprehensive plans are included in subpart A of part 1952 and brief descriptions of State plans covering State and local government employees only are included in subpart B of part 1952. Any significant changes that would make these descriptions outdated, such as a withdrawal or grant of final approval, will continue to be codified in the CFR.

    The partial deletions of the State plan descriptions from the CFR will not decrease transparency. Each section of part 1952 continues to note each State plan, the date of its initial approval, and, where applicable, the date of final approval, the existence of an operational status agreement, and the approval of staffing requirements (“benchmarks”). Each section makes a general statement of coverage indicating whether the plan covers all private-sector and State and local government employers, with some exceptions, or State and local government employers only. Each section also notes that current information about these coverage exceptions and additional details about the State plan can be obtained from the Web page on the OSHA public Web site describing the particular State plan (a link is referenced). The OSHA Web page for each State plan will also be updated to include the latest information on coverage and other important changes. Furthermore, the other information about the State plan that is currently in the CFR will still be available in the Federal Register, and can be searched electronically at https.//www.federalregister.gov and is also available in printed form. The Federal Register can also be searched electronically on commercially available legal databases. When changes are made to State plan coverage, all of the information on coverage will be reprinted in the Federal Register along with the change so that readers will not have to search through many Federal Register notices to obtain a comprehensive description of coverage.

    In addition to changing the individual descriptions of all State plans within part 1952, OSHA is making several other housekeeping changes. First, OSHA is moving the provisions of subpart A of part 1952 that pertain to the required criteria for State plans, to part 1902. (The following provisions are moved to part 1902: 29 CFR 1952.4, Injury and illness recording and reporting requirements; 29 CFR 1952.6, Partial approval of State plans; 29 CFR 1952.8, Variations, tolerances, and exemptions affecting the national defense; 29 CFR1952.9, Variances affecting multi-state employers; 29 CFR 1952.10, Requirements for approval of State posters; and 29 CFR 1952.11, State and local government employee programs.) As a result, the complete criteria for State plans will be located within part 1902.

    OSHA is deleting 29 CFR 1952.1 (Purpose and scope) and 29 CFR 1952.2 (Definitions) because the changes described above and the restructuring of part 1952 make these provisions unnecessary. OSHA is also deleting 29 CFR 1952.3 (Developmental plans) because that material is covered by 29 CFR 1902.2(b). The text of 29 CFR 1952.5 (Availability of State plans) used to require complete copies of each State plan, including supplements thereto, to be kept at OSHA's National Office, the office of the nearest OSHA Regional Administrator, and the office of the State plan agency listed in part 1952. OSHA is deleting 29 CFR 1952.5 because with the widespread use of electronic document storage and the internet, it is no longer necessary to physically store such information in order to make it available to the public. Information about State plans can now be found on each State plan's Web site, as well as on OSHA's Web site. For the same reasons, OSHA is deleting the language in 29 CFR 1953.3(c) (Plan supplement availability) which discusses making State plan documents available for public inspection and photocopying in designated offices. The text of 29 CFR 1952.7(a), which deals with product standards, is being deleted because the explanation of section 18(c)(2) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 667(c)(2) on product standards is already covered by 29 CFR 1902.3(c)(2). However, § 1952.7(b) is being moved to the end of § 1902.3(c)(2) because that material was not previously included. In addition, OSHA is deleting references to part 1952 from several other parts of the regulations, such as parts 1903, 1904, 1953, 1954 and 1955, because these references are no longer accurate due to the changes made by this streamlining. Where appropriate, OSHA is inserting references to the newly numbered part 1902.

    Finally, OSHA is making some further minor changes to part 1902. The text of 29 CFR 1902.3(j), which briefly describes State plans covering State and local government employees, is being deleted because a more detailed description of State plan coverage of State and local government employees, formerly set forth in 29 CFR 1952.11, is now being incorporated into 29 CFR part 1902 as § 1902.4(d). This change necessitates the re-designation of paragraphs in § 1902.3. Also, OSHA is changing 29 CFR 1902.10(a) to reduce the number of copies a State agency must submit in order to obtain approval of a State plan. With the advent of computer technology the submission of extra paper copies of documents is not necessary. OSHA also is deleting outdated references to an address in 29 CFR 1902.11(c) and (d).

    Administrative Procedure Act and Direct Final Rulemaking

    The notice and comment rulemaking procedures of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) do not apply “to interpretive rules, general statements of policy or, rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” or when the agency for good cause finds that “notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), (B). The revisions set forth in this document do not implement any substantive change in the development, operation or monitoring of State plans. Nor do these revisions change the coverage or other enforcement responsibilities of the State plans or federal OSHA. The compliance obligations of employers and the rights of employees remain unaffected. Therefore, OSHA for good cause finds that notice and comment is unnecessary. In addition, the elimination of the requirement to make State plan documents available in certain federal and State offices and the reduction of the number of copies of a proposed State plan which a State agency must submit, are purely procedural changes. Upon the issuance of this document, future alterations to State plan coverage will only require a simple easily searchable notice to be published in the Federal Register and an update to OSHA's State plan Web page. For these reasons, publication in the Federal Register of a notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments are not required for these revisions.

    OSHA is publishing a companion proposed rule along with this direct final rule in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register. An agency uses direct final rulemaking when it anticipates that a rule will not be controversial. OSHA does not consider this rule to be such because it primarily consists of changes in the organization of State plan information housed within the CFR, and the resultant re-numbering and updates to cross-references throughout the CFR.

    In direct final rulemaking, an agency publishes a direct final rule in the Federal Register with a statement that the rule will become effective unless the agency receives significant adverse comment within a specified period. The agency may publish an identical proposed rule at the same time. If the agency receives no significant adverse comment in response to the direct final rule, the agency typically confirms the effective date of a direct final rule through a separate Federal Register document. If the agency receives a significant adverse comment, the agency withdraws the direct final rule and treats such comment as a response to the proposed rule. For purposes of this direct final rule and the companion proposed rule, a significant adverse comment is one that explains why the rule would be inappropriate.

    The comment period for the direct final rule runs concurrently with that of the proposed rule. OSHA will treat comments received on the direct final rule as comments regarding the proposed rule. OSHA also will consider significant adverse comment submitted to this direct final rule as comment to the companion proposed rule. If OSHA receives no significant adverse comment to either this direct final rule or the proposal, OSHA will publish a Federal Register document confirming the effective date of the direct final rule and withdrawing the companion proposed rule. Such confirmation may include minor stylistic or technical changes to the document. If OSHA receives a significant adverse comment on either the direct final rule or the proposed rule, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and proceed with the proposed rule. In the event OSHA withdraws the direct final rule because of significant adverse comment, OSHA will consider all timely comments received in response to the direct final rule when it continues with the proposed rule. After carefully considering all comments to the direct final rule and the proposal, OSHA will decide whether to publish a new final rule.

    OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This direct final rule revises “collection of information” (paperwork) requirements that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA-95”), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and OMB's regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. The Paperwork Reduction Act defines a “collection of information” as “the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public of facts or opinions by or for an agency regardless of form or format” (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). OMB approved the collection of information requirements currently contained in the regulations associated with OSHA-approved State Plans (29 CFR parts 1902, 1952, 1953, 1954, and 1956) under OMB Control Number 1218-0247.

    Through emergency processing procedures, OSHA submitted a request that OMB revise the collection of information requirements contained in these regulations within 45 days of publication. The direct final rule would not impose new collection of information requirements for purposes of PRA-95; therefore, the Agency does not believe that this rule will impact burden hours or costs. The direct final rule would move the current collection of information requirement provisions of subpart A of part 1952, pertaining to required criteria for State plans, to part 1902. The direct final rule would delete the text of current 29 CFR 1952.5 (Availability of State plans) requiring complete copies of each State plan, including supplements thereto, to be kept at OSHA's National Office, the nearest OSHA Regional office, and the office of the State plan agency. The rule would also delete the language in current 29 CFR 1953.3(c) (Plan supplement availability) which discusses making State plan documents available for public inspection and photocopying in designated offices. The rule would also reduce from ten to one the number of copies of the State plan which a State agency must submit under 29 CFR 1902.10(a) in order to obtain approval of the State plan. Finally, the direct final rule would revise regulations containing current collection of information requirements at 29 CFR parts 1902, 1952, 1953, 1954, and 1956 to delete or update cross-references, remove duplicative provisions, and re-designate paragraphs.

    OSHA has submitted an ICR addressing the collection of information requirements identified in this rule to OMB for review (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). OSHA solicits comments on the proposed extension and revision of the collection of information requirements and the estimated burden hours associated with the regulations associated with OSHA-approved State Plans, including comments on the following:

    Whether the proposed collection of information requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

    The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and cost) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    Enhancing the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

    Minimizing the burden on employers who must comply, for example, by using automated or other technological techniques for collecting and transmitting information.

    Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv), OSHA provides the following summary of the Occupational Safety and Health State Plans Information Collection Request (ICR):

    1. Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    2. Title: Occupational Safety and Health State Plans

    3. OMB Control Number: 1218-0247.

    4. Description of Collection of Information Requirements: The collection of information requirements contained in the regulations associated with this rule are set forth below. The citations reflect changes made in this direct final rule and the accompanying notice of proposed rulemaking.

    Part Collection of information requirements 29 CFR 1902 1902.2(a), 1902.2(b), 1902.2(c)(2), 1902.2(c)(3), 1902.3(a), 1902.3(b)(1)-(b)(3), 1902.3(c)(1), 1902.3(d)(1), 1902.3(d)(2), 1902.3(e), 1902.3(f), 1902.3(g), 1902.3(h), 1902.3(i), 1902.3(j), 1902.3(k), 1902.4(a), 1902.4(a)(1), 1902.4(a)(2), 1902.4(b)(1), 1902.4(b)(2), 1902.4(b)(2)(i)-(b)(2)(vii), 1902.4(c)(1), 1902.4(c)(2), 1902.4(c)(2)(i)-(c)(2)(xiii), 1902.4(d)(1), 1902.4(d)(2), 1902.4(d)(2)(i)-(d)(2)(iii)(k), 1902.4(e), 1902.7(a), 1902.7(d), 1902.9(a)(1), 1902.9(a)(5), 1902.9(a)(5)(i)-(a)(5)(xii), 1902.10, 1902.10(a), 1902.10(b), 1902.31, 1902.32(e), 1902.33, 1902.38(b), 1902.39(a), 1902.39(b), 1902.44(a), 1902.46(d), 1902.46(d)(1). 29 CFR 1952. 29 CFR 1953 1953.1(a), 1953.1(b), 1953.1(c), 1953.2(c)-1953.2(j), 1953.3(a)-(e), 1953.4(a)(1)-1953.4(a)(5), 1953.4(b)(1)-1953.4(b)(7), 1953.4(c)(1)-1953.4(c)(5), 1953.4(d)(1), 1953.4(d)(2), 1953.5(a)(1)-1953.5(a)(3), 1953.5(b)(1)-(b)(3), 1953.6(a), 1953.6(e). 29 CFR 1954 1954.2(a), 1954.2(b), 1954.2(b)(1)-1954.2(b)(3), 1954.2(c), 1954.2(d), 1954.2(e), 1954.2(e)(1)-(e)(4), 1954.3(f)(1), 1954.3(f)(1)(i)-1954.3(f)(1)(v), 1954.10(a), 1954.10(b), 1954.10(c), 1954.11, 1954.20(a), 1954.20(b), 1954.20(c)(1), 1954.20(c)(2), 1954.20(c)(2)(i)-1954.20(c)(2)(iv), 1954.21(a), 1954.21(b), 1954.21(c), 1954.21(d), 1954.22(a)(1), 1954.22(a)(2). 29 CFR 1955. 29 CFR 1956 1956.2(b)(1), 1956.2(b)(1)(i)-(ii), 1956.2(b)(2), 1956.2(b)(3), 1956.2(c)(1), 1956.2(c)(2), 1956.10(a), 1956.10(b)(1), 1956.10(b)(2), 1956.10(b)(3), 1956.10(c), 1956.10(d)(1), 1956.10(d)(2), 1956.10(e), 1956.10(f), 1956.10(g), 1956.10(h), 1956.10(i), 1956.10(j), 1956.11(a), 1956.11(a)(1), 1956.11(a)(2), 1956.11(d), 1956.20, 1956.21, 1956.22, 1956.23.

    5. Affected Public: Designated state government agencies that are seeking or have submitted and obtained approval for State Plans for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health standards.

    6. Number of Respondents: 28.

    7. Frequency: On occasion; quarterly; annually.

    8. Average Time per Response: Varies from 30 minutes (.5 hour) to respond to an information inquiry to 80 hours to document state annual performance goals.

    9. Estimated Total Burden Hours: The Agency does not believe that this rule will impact burden hours or costs. However, based on updated data and estimates, the Agency is requesting an adjustment increase of 173 burden hours, from 11,196 to 11,369 burden hours. This burden hour increase is the result of the anticipated increase in the submission of state plan changes associated with one state (Maine) actively implementing a new State Plan. The burden hour increase was partially offset by the decrease in the estimated number of state-initiated state plan changes.

    10. Estimated Costs (Operation and Maintenance): There are no capital costs for this collection of information.

    Submitting comments. In addition to having an opportunity to file comments with the Department, the PRA provides that an interested party may file comments on the collection of information requirements contained in the rule directly with the Office of Management and Budget, at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected] Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments to the Department. See ADDRESSES section of this preamble. The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives within forty-five (45) days of publication of this DFR in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB control number 1218-0247. Comments submitted in response to this document are public records; therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers and date of birth.

    Docket and inquiries. To access the docket to read or download comments and other materials related to this paperwork determination, including the complete Information Collection Request (ICR) (containing the Supporting Statement with attachments describing the paperwork determinations in detail), use the procedures described under the section of this document titled ADDRESSES. You also may obtain an electronic copy of the complete ICR by visiting the Web page, http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, select “Department of Labor” under “Currently Under Review” to view all of DOL's ICRs, including the ICR related to this rulemaking. To make inquiries, or to request other information, contact Mr. Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, Room N-3609, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.

    OSHA notes that a federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB control number, and the public is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Also, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Unfunded Mandates, and Executive Orders on the Review of Regulations

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (as amended), OSHA examined the provisions of the direct final rule to determine whether it would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since no employer of any size will have any new compliance obligations, the Agency certifies that the direct final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. OSHA also reviewed this direct final rule in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Because this rule imposes no new compliance obligations, it requires no additional expenditures by either private employers or State, local, or tribal governments.

    Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) emphasizes consultation between Federal agencies and the States on policies not required by statute which have federalism implications, i.e., policies, such as regulations, which 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, or which impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. This direct final rule has no federalism implications and will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State or local governments.

    OSHA has reviewed this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) and determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects 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.

    List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1902, 1903, 1904, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956

    Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement, Occupational safety and health.

    Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, authorized the preparation of this direct final rule. OSHA is issuing this direct final rule under the authority specified by Sections 8(c)(1), 8(c)(2), and 8(g)(2) and 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 657 (c)(1), (c)(2), and (g)(2) and 667) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (76 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 28, 2015. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. Amendments to Regulations

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble of this direct final rule, OSHA amends 29 CFR parts 1902, 1903, 1904, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956 as follows:

    PART 1902—STATE PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF STATE STANDARDS 1. The authority citation for part 1902 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 8 and 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 657, 667); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).

    Subpart B—Criteria for State Plans 2. Amend § 1902.3 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (c)(2); b. Remove paragraph (j); c. Redesignate paragraphs (k) and (l) as (j) and (k), respectively.

    The revision reads as follows:

    § 1902.3 Specific criteria.

    (c) * * *

    (2) The State plan shall not include standards for products distributed or used in interstate commerce which are different from Federal standards for such products unless such standards are required by compelling local conditions and do not unduly burden interstate commerce. This provision, reflecting section 18(c)(2) of the Act, is interpreted as not being applicable to customized products or parts not normally available on the open market, or to the optional parts or additions to products which are ordinarily available with such optional parts or additions. In situations where section 18(c)(2) is considered applicable, and provision is made for the adoption of product standards, the requirements of section 18(c)(2), as they relate to undue burden on interstate commerce, shall be treated as a condition subsequent in light of the facts and circumstances which may be involved.

    3. Amend § 1902.4 by revising paragraph (d) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 1902.4 Indices of effectiveness.

    (d) State and local government employee programs. (1) Each approved State plan must contain satisfactory assurances that the State will, to the extent permitted by its law, establish and maintain an effective and comprehensive occupational safety and health program applicable to all employees of public agencies of the State and its political subdivisions which program is as effective as the standards contained in an approved plan.

    (2) This criterion for approved State plans is interpreted to require the following elements with regard to coverage, standards, and enforcement:

    (i) Coverage. The program must cover all public employees over which the State has legislative authority under its constitution. The language in section 18(c)(6) which only requires such coverage to the extent permitted by the State's law specifically recognizes the situation where local governments exclusively control their own employees, such as under certain home rule charters.

    (ii) Standards. The program must be as effective as the standards contained in the approved plan applicable to private employers. Thus, the same criteria and indices of standards effectiveness contained in §§ 1902.3(c) and 1902.4(a) and (b) would apply to the public employee program. Where hazards are unique to public employment, all appropriate indices of effectiveness, such as those dealing with temporary emergency standards, development of standards, employee information, variances, and protective equipment, would be applicable to standards for such hazards.

    (iii) Enforcement. Although section 18(c)(6) of the Act requires State public employee programs to be as effective as standards contained in the State plan, minimum enforcement elements are required to ensure an effective and comprehensive public employee program as follows:

    (A) Regular inspections of workplaces, including inspections in response to valid employee complaints;

    (B) A means for employees to bring possible violations to the attention of inspectors;

    (C) Notification to employees, or their representatives, of decisions that no violations are found as a result of complaints by such employees or their representatives, and informal review of such decisions;

    (D) A means of informing employees of their protections and obligations under the Act;

    (E) Protection for employees against discharge of discrimination because of the exercise of rights under the Act;

    (F) Employee access to information on their exposure to toxic materials or harmful physical agents and prompt notification to employees when they have been or are being exposed to such materials or agents at concentrations or levels above those specified by the applicable standards;

    (G) Procedures for the prompt restraint or elimination of imminent danger situations;

    (H) A means of promptly notifying employers and employees when an alleged violation has occurred, including the proposed abatement requirements;

    (I) A means of establishing timetables for the correction of violations;

    (J) A program for encouraging voluntary compliance; and

    (K) Such other additional enforcement provisions under State law as may have been included in the State plan.

    (3) In accordance with § 1902.3(b)(3), the State agency or agencies designated to administer the plan throughout the State must retain overall responsibility for the entire plan. Political subdivisions may have the responsibility and authority for the development and enforcement of standards: Provided, that the designated State agency or agencies have adequate authority by statute, regulation, or agreement to insure that the commitments of the State under the plan will be fulfilled.

    (e) Additional indices. Upon his own motion or after consideration of data, views and arguments received in any proceeding held under subpart C of this part, the Assistant Secretary may prescribe additional indices for any State plan which shall be in furtherance of the purpose of this part, as expressed in § 1902.1.

    4. Add §§ 1902.7 through 1902.09 to read as follows: Sec. 1902.7 Injury and illness recording and reporting requirements. 1902.8 Variations and variances. 1902.9 Requirements for approval of State posters.
    § 1902.7 Injury and illness recording and reporting requirements.

    (a) Injury and illness recording and reporting requirements promulgated by State-Plan States must be substantially identical to those in 29 CFR part 1904 on recording and reporting occupational injuries and illnesses. State-Plan States must promulgate recording and reporting requirements that are the same as the Federal requirements for determining which injuries and illnesses will be entered into the records and how they are entered. All other injury and illness recording and reporting requirements that are promulgated by State-Plan States may be more stringent than, or supplemental to, the Federal requirements, but, because of the unique nature of the national recordkeeping program, States must consult with OSHA and obtain approval of such additional or more stringent reporting and recording requirements to ensure that they will not interfere with uniform reporting objectives. State-Plan States must extend the scope of their regulation to State and local government employers.

    (b) A State may not grant a variance to the injury and illness recording and reporting requirements for private sector employers. Such variances may only be granted by Federal OSHA to assure nationally consistent workplace injury and illness statistics. A State may only grant a variance to the injury and illness recording and reporting requirements for State or local government entities in that State after obtaining approval from Federal OSHA.

    (c) A State must recognize any variance issued by Federal OSHA.

    (d) A State may, but is not required, to participate in the Annual OSHA Injury/Illness Survey as authorized by 29 CFR 1904.41. A participating State may either adopt requirements identical to § 1904.41 in its recording and reporting regulation as an enforceable State requirement, or may defer to the Federal regulation for enforcement. Nothing in any State plan shall affect the duties of employers to comply with § 1904.41, when surveyed, as provided by section 18(c)(7) of the Act.

    § 1902.8 Variations and variances.

    (a) The power of the Secretary of Labor under section 16 of the Act to provide reasonable limitations and variations, tolerances, and exemptions to and from any or all provisions of the Act as he may find necessary and proper to avoid serious impairment of the national defense is reserved.

    (b) No action by a State under a plan shall be inconsistent with action by the Secretary under this section of the Act.

    (c) Where a State standard is identical to a Federal standard addressed to the same hazard, an employer or group of employers seeking a temporary or permanent variance from such standard, or portion thereof, to be applicable to employment or places of employment in more than one State, including at least one State with an approved plan, may elect to apply to the Assistant Secretary for such variance under the provisions of 29 CFR part 1905.

    (d) Actions taken by the Assistant Secretary with respect to such application for a variance, such as interim orders, with respect thereto, the granting, denying, or issuing any modification or extension thereof, will be deemed prospectively an authoritative interpretation of the employer or employers' compliance obligations with regard to the State standard, or portion thereof, identical to the Federal standard, or portion thereof, affected by the action in the employment or places of employment covered by the application.

    (e) Nothing herein shall affect the option of an employer or employers seeking a temporary or permanent variance with applicability to employment or places of employment in more than one State to apply for such variance either to the Assistant Secretary or the individual State agencies involved. However, the filing with, as well as granting, denial, modification, or revocation of a variance request or interim order by, either authority (Federal or State) shall preclude any further substantive consideration of such application on the same material facts for the same employment or place of employment by the other authority.

    (f) Nothing herein shall affect either Federal or State authority and obligations to cite for noncompliance with standards in employment or places of employment where no interim order, variance, or modification or extension thereof, granted under State or Federal law applies, or to cite for noncompliance with such Federal or State variance action.

    § 1902.9 Requirements for approval of State posters.

    (a)(1) In order to inform employees of their protections and obligations under applicable State law, of the issues not covered by State law, and of the continuing availability of Federal monitoring under section 18(f) of the Act, States with approved plans shall develop and require employers to post a State poster meeting the requirements set out in paragraph (a)(5) of this section.

    (2) Such poster shall be substituted for the Federal poster under section 8(c)(1) of the Act and § 1903.2 of this chapter where the State attains operational status for the enforcement of State standards as defined in § 1954.3(b) of this chapter.

    (3) Where a State has distributed its poster and has enabling legislation as defined in § 1954.3(b)(1) of this chapter but becomes nonoperational under the provisions of § 1954.3(f)(1) of this chapter because of failure to be at least as effective as the Federal program, the approved State poster may, at the discretion of the Assistant Secretary, continue to be substituted for the Federal poster in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (4) A State may, for good cause shown, request, under 29 CFR part 1953, approval of an alternative to a State poster for informing employees of their protections and obligations under the State plans, provided such alternative is consistent with the Act, § 1902.4(c)(2)(iv) and applicable State law. In order to qualify as a substitute for the Federal poster under this paragraph (a), such alternative must be shown to be at least as effective as the Federal poster requirements in informing employees of their protections and obligations and address the items listed in paragraph (a)(5) of this section.

    (5) In developing the poster, the State shall address but not be limited to the following items:

    (i) Responsibilities of the State, employers and employees;

    (ii) The right of employees or their representatives to request workplace inspections;

    (iii) The right of employees making such requests to remain anonymous;

    (iv) The right of employees to participate in inspections;

    (v) Provisions for prompt notice to employers and employees when alleged violations occur;

    (vi) Protection for employees against discharge or discrimination for the exercise of their rights under Federal and State law;

    (vii) Sanctions;

    (viii) A means of obtaining further information on State law and standards and the address of the State agency;

    (ix) The right to file complaints with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration about State program administration;

    (x) A list of the issues as defined in § 1902.2(c) which will not be covered by State plan;

    (xi) The address of the Regional Office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; and

    (xii) Such additional employee protection provisions and obligations under State law as may have been included in the approved State plan.

    (b) Posting of the State poster shall be recognized as compliance with the posting requirements in section 8(c)(1) of the Act and § 1903.2 of this chapter, provided that the poster has been approved in accordance with subpart B of part 1953 of this chapter. Continued Federal recognition of the State poster is also subject to pertinent findings of effectiveness with regard to the State program under 29 CFR part 1954.

    Subpart C—Procedures for Submission, Approval and Rejection of State Plans
    5. In § 1902.10, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 1902.10 Submission.

    (a) An authorized representative of the State agency or agencies responsible for administering the plan shall submit one copy of the plan to the appropriate Assistant Regional Director of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. The State plan shall include supporting papers conforming to the requirements specified in the subpart B of this part, and the State occupational safety and health standards to be included in the plan, including a copy of any specific or enabling State laws and regulations relating to such standards. If any of the representations concerning the requirements of subpart B of this part are dependent upon any judicial or administrative interpretations of the State standards or enforcement provisions, the State shall furnish citations to any pertinent judicial decisions and the text of any pertinent administrative decisions.

    6. In § 1902.11, revise paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
    § 1902.11 General notice.

    (c) The notice shall provide that the plan, or copies thereof, shall be available for inspection and copying at the office of the Director, Office of State Programs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, office of the Assistant Regional Director in whose region the State is located, and an office of the State which shall be designated by the State for this purpose.

    (d) The notice shall afford interested persons an opportunity to submit in writing, data, views, and arguments on the proposal, subjects, or issues involved within 30 days after publication of the notice in the Federal Register. Thereafter the written comments received or copies thereof shall be available for public inspection and copying at the office of the Director, Office of State Programs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, office of the Assistant Regional Director in whose region the State is located, and an office of the State which shall be designated by the State for this purpose.

    7. Add § 1902.16 immediately following § 1902.15 to read as follows:
    § 1902.16 Partial approval of State plans.

    (a) The Assistant Secretary may partially approve a plan under this part whenever:

    (1) The portion to be approved meets the requirements of this part;

    (2) The plan covers more than one occupational safety and health issue; and

    (3) Portions of the plan to be approved are reasonably separable from the remainder of the plan.

    (b) Whenever the Assistant Secretary approves only a portion of a State plan, he may give notice to the State of an opportunity to show cause why a proceeding should not be commenced for disapproval of the remainder of the plan under subpart C of this part before commencing such a proceeding.

    Subpart D—Procedures for Determinations under section 18(e) of the Act
    8. In § 1902.31, revise the definition of “Development step” to read as follows:
    § 1902.31 Definitions.

    Development step includes, but is not limited to, those items listed in the published developmental schedule, or any revisions thereof, for each plan. A developmental step also includes those items specified in the plan as approved under section 18(c) of the Act for completion by the State, as well as those items which under the approval decision were subject to evaluations and changes deemed necessary as a result thereof to make the State program at least as effective as the Federal program within the 3 years developmental period. (See 29 CFR 1953.4(a)).

    9. Revise § 1902.33 to read as follows:
    § 1902.33 Developmental period.

    Upon the commencement of plan operations after the initial approval of a State's plan by the Assistant Secretary, a State has three years in which to complete all of the developmental steps specified in the plan as approved. Section 1953.4 of this chapter sets forth the procedures for the submission and consideration of developmental changes by OSHA. Generally, whenever a State completes a developmental step, it must submit the resulting plan change as a supplement to its plan to OSHA for approval. OSHA's approval of such changes is then published in the Federal Register.

    10. In § 1902.34, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 1902.34 Certification of completion of developmental steps.

    (c) After a review of the certification and the State's plan, if the Assistant Secretary finds that the State has completed all the developmental steps specified in the plan, he shall publish the certification in the Federal Register.

    § 1902.41 [Amended]
    11. In § 1902.41, remove paragraph (c) and redesignate paragraph (d) as (c). 12. In § 1902.43, revise paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
    § 1902.43 Affirmative 18(e) decision.

    (a) * * *

    (3) An amendment to the appropriate section of part 1952 of this chapter;

    PART 1903—INSPECTIONS, CITATIONS AND PROPOSED PENALTIES 13. The authority citation for part 1903 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 8 and 9 (29 U.S.C. 657, 658); 5 U.S.C. 553; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).

    14. In § 1903.2, revise paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
    § 1903.2 Posting of notice; availability of the Act, regulations and applicable standard.

    (a) * * *

    (2) Where a State has an approved poster informing employees of their protections and obligations as defined in § 1902.9 of this chapter, such poster, when posted by employers covered by the State plan, shall constitute compliance with the posting requirements of section 8(c)(1) of the Act. Employers whose operations are not within the issues covered by the State plan must comply with paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

    PART 1904—RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES 15. The authority citation for part 1904 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    29 U.S.C. 657, 658, 660, 666, 669, 673, Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).

    Subpart D—Other OSHA Injury and Illness Recordkeeping Requirements
    16. In § 1904.37, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 1904.37 State recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) Basic requirement. Some States operate their own OSHA programs, under the authority of a State plan as approved by OSHA. States operating OSHA-approved State plans must have occupational injury and illness recording and reporting requirements that are substantially identical to the requirements in this part (see 29 CFR 1902.3(j), 29 CFR 1902.7, and 29 CFR 1956.10(i)).

    PART 1952—APPROVED STATE PLANS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF STATE STANDARDS 17. The authority citation for part 1952 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 667); 29 CFR part 1902; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).

    18. Revise subpart A to read as follows: Subpart A—List of Approved State Plans for Private-Sector and State and Local Government Employees Sec. 1952.1 South Carolina. 1952.2 Oregon. 1952.3 Utah. 1952.4 Washington. 1952.5 North Carolina. 1952.6 Iowa. 1952.7 California. 1952.8 Minnesota. 1952.9 Maryland. 1952.10 Tennessee. 1952.11 Kentucky. 1952.12 Alaska. 1952.13 Michigan. 1952.14 Vermont. 1952.15 Nevada. 1952.16 Hawaii. 1952.17 Indiana. 1952.18 Wyoming. 1952.19 Arizona. 1952.20 New Mexico. 1952.21 Virginia. 1952.22 Puerto Rico. Subpart A—List of Approved State Plans for Private-Sector and State and Local Government Employees
    § 1952.1 South Carolina.

    (a) The South Carolina State plan received initial approval on December 6, 1972.

    (b) The South Carolina State plan received final approval on December 18, 1987.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance officer staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984, South Carolina, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the staffing levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 17 safety and 12 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on January 17, 1986.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/south_carolina.html.

    § 1952.2 Oregon.

    (a) The Oregon State plan received initial approval on December 28, 1972.

    (b) The Oregon State plan received final approval on May 12, 2005.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (“benchmarks”) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required for each State operating an approved State plan. In October 1992, Oregon completed, in conjunction with OSHA, a reassessment of the health staffing level initially established in 1980 and proposed a revised health benchmark of 28 health compliance officers. Oregon elected to retain the safety benchmark level established in the 1980 Report to the Court of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 1980 of 47 safety compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on August 11, 1994.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/oregon.html.

    § 1952.3 Utah.

    (a) The Utah State plan received initial approval on January 10, 1973.

    (b) The Utah State plan received final approval on July 16, 1985.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984, Utah, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 10 safety and 9 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comments and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements effective July 16, 1985.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/utah.html.

    § 1952.4 Washington.

    (a) The Washington State plan received initial approval on January 26, 1973.

    (b) OSHA entered into an operational status agreement with Washington.

    (c) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/washington.html.

    § 1952.5 North Carolina.

    (a) The North Carolina State plan received initial approval on February 1, 1973.

    (b) The North Carolina State plan received final approval on December 18, 1996.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (“benchmarks”) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984, North Carolina, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised benchmarks of 50 safety and 27 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on January 17, 1986.

    In June 1990, North Carolina reconsidered the information utilized in the initial revision of its 1980 benchmarks and determined that changes in local conditions and improved inspection data warranted further revision of its benchmarks to 64 safety inspectors and 50 industrial hygienists. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on June 4, 1996.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/north_carolina.html.

    § 1952.6 Iowa.

    (a) The Iowa State plan received initial approval on July 20, 1973.

    (b) The Iowa State plan received final approval on July 2, 1985.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984, Iowa, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 16 safety and 13 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements effective July 2, 1985.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/iowa.html.

    § 1952.7 California.

    (a) The California State plan received initial approval on May 1, 1973.

    (b) OSHA entered into an operational status agreement with California.

    (c) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/california.html.

    § 1952.8 Minnesota.

    (a) The Minnesota State plan received initial approval on June 8, 1973.

    (b) The Minnesota State plan received final approval on July 30, 1985.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984 Minnesota, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 31 safety and 12 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on July 30, 1985.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/minnesota.html.

    § 1952.9 Maryland.

    (a) The Maryland State plan received initial approval on July 5, 1973.

    (b) The Maryland State plan received final approval on July 18, 1985.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984 Maryland, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 36 safety and 18 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on July 18, 1985.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/maryland.html.

    § 1952.10 Tennessee.

    (a) The Tennessee State plan received initial approval on July 5, 1973.

    (b) The Tennessee State plan received final approval on July 22, 1985.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984 Tennessee, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 22 safety and 14 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on July 22, 1985.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/tennessee.html.

    § 1952.11 Kentucky.

    (a) The Kentucky State plan received initial approval on July 31, 1973.

    (b) The Kentucky State plan received final approval on June 13, 1985.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984 Kentucky, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 23 safety and 14 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on June 13, 1985.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/kentucky.html.

    § 1952.12 Alaska.

    (a) The Alaska State plan received initial approval on August 10, 1973.

    (b) The Alaska State plan received final approval on September 28, 1984.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. Alaska's compliance staffing benchmarks are 4 safety and 5 health compliance officers.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/alaska.html.

    § 1952.13 Michigan.

    (a) The Michigan State plan received initial approval on October 3, 1973.

    (b) OSHA entered into an operational status agreement with Michigan.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (“benchmarks”) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required for each State operating an approved State plan. In 1992, Michigan completed, in conjunction with OSHA, a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised benchmarks of 56 safety and 45 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on April 20, 1995.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/michigan.html.

    § 1952.14 Vermont.

    (a) The Vermont State plan received initial approval on October 16, 1973.

    (b) OSHA entered into an operational status agreement with Vermont.

    (c) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/vermont.html.

    § 1952.15 Nevada.

    (a) The Nevada State plan received initial approval on January 4, 1974.

    (b) The Nevada State plan received final approval on April 18, 2000.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In July 1986 Nevada, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 11 safety and 5 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on September 2, 1987.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/nevada.html.

    § 1952.16 Hawaii.

    (a) The Hawaii State plan received initial approval on January 4, 1974.

    (b) The Hawaii State plan received final approval on May 4, 1984.

    (c) On September 21, 2012 OSHA modified the State Plan's approval status from final approval to initial approval, and reinstated concurrent federal enforcement authority pending the necessary corrective action by the State Plan in order to once again meet the criteria for a final approval determination. OSHA and Hawaii entered into an operational status agreement to provide a workable division of enforcement responsibilities.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/hawaii.html.

    § 1952.17 Indiana.

    (a) The Indiana State plan received initial approval on March 6, 1974.

    (b) The Indiana State plan received final approval on September 26, 1986.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984 Indiana, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 47 safety and 23 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on January 17, 1986.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/indiana.html.

    § 1952.18 Wyoming.

    (a) The Wyoming State plan received initial approval on May 3, 1974.

    (b) The Wyoming State plan received final approval on June 27, 1985.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984 Wyoming, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 6 safety and 2 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on June 27, 1985.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/wyoming.html.

    § 1952.19 Arizona.

    (a) The Arizona State plan received initial approval on November 5, 1974.

    (b) The Arizona State plan received final approval on June 20, 1985.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984, Arizona in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 9 safety and 6 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on June 20, 1985.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/arizona.html.

    § 1952.20 New Mexico.

    (a) The New Mexico State plan received initial approval on December 10, 1975.

    (b) OSHA entered into an operational status agreement with New Mexico.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (“benchmarks”) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required for each State operating an approved State plan. In May 1992, New Mexico completed, in conjunction with OSHA, a reassessment of the staffing levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised benchmarks of 7 safety and 3 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on August 11, 1994.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/new_mexico.html.

    § 1952.21 Virginia.

    (a) The Virginia State plan received initial approval on September 28, 1976.

    (b) The Virginia State plan received final approval on November 30, 1988.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984 Virginia, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 38 safety and 21 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on January 17, 1986.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/virginia.html.

    § 1952.22 Puerto Rico.

    (a) The Puerto Rico State plan received initial approval on August 30, 1977.

    (b) OSHA entered into an operational status agreement with Puerto Rico.

    (c) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/puerto_rico.html.

    19. Add subpart B to read as follows: Subpart B—List of Approved State Plans for State and Local Government Employees Sec. 1952.23 Connecticut. 1952.24 New York. 1952.25 New Jersey. 1952.26 The Virgin Islands. 1952.27 Illinois. Subpart B—List of Approved State Plans for State and Local Government Employees
    § 1952.23 Connecticut.

    (a) The Connecticut State plan for State and local government employees received initial approval from the Assistant Secretary on November 3, 1978.

    (b) In accordance with 29 CFR 1956.10(g), a State is required to have a sufficient number of adequately trained and competent personnel to discharge its responsibilities under the plan. The Connecticut Public Employee Only State plan provides for three (3) safety compliance officers and one (1) health compliance officer as set forth in the Connecticut Fiscal Year 1986 grant. This staffing level meets the “fully effective” benchmarks established for Connecticut for both safety and health.

    (c) The plan only covers State and local government employers and employees within the State. For additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/connecticut.html.

    § 1952.24 New York.

    (a) The New York State plan for State and local government employees received initial approval from the Assistant Secretary on June 1, 1984.

    (b) The plan, as revised on April 28, 2006, provides assurances of a fully trained, adequate staff, including 29 safety and 21 health compliance officers for enforcement inspections and 11 safety and 9 health consultants to perform consultation services in the public sector. The State has also given satisfactory assurances of continued adequate funding to support the plan.

    (c) The plan only covers State and local government employers and employees within the State. For additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/new_york.html.

    § 1952.25 New Jersey.

    (a) The New Jersey State plan for State and local government employees received initial approval from the Assistant Secretary on January 11, 2001.

    (b) The plan further provides assurances of a fully trained, adequate staff, including 20 safety and 7 health compliance officers for enforcement inspections, and 4 safety and 3 health consultants to perform consultation services in the public sector, and 2 safety and 3 health training and education staff. The State has assured that it will continue to provide a sufficient number of adequately trained and qualified personnel necessary for the enforcement of standards as required by 29 CFR 1956.10. The State has also given satisfactory assurance of adequate funding to support the plan.

    (c) The plan only covers State and local government employers and employees within the State. For additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/new_jersey.html.

    § 1952.26 The Virgin Islands.

    (a) The Virgin Islands State plan for Public Employees Only was approved on July 23, 2003.

    (b) The plan only covers State and local government employers and employees within the State. For additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/virgin_islands.html.

    § 1952.27 Illinois.

    (a) The Illinois State plan for state and local government employees received initial approval from the Assistant Secretary on September 1, 2009.

    (b) The Plan further provides assurances of a fully trained, adequate staff within three years of plan approval, including 11 safety and 3 health compliance officers for enforcement inspections, and 3 safety and 2 health consultants to perform consultation services in the public sector. The state has assured that it will continue to provide a sufficient number of adequately trained and qualified personnel necessary for the enforcement of standards as required by 29 CFR 1956.10. The state has also given satisfactory assurance of adequate funding to support the Plan.

    (c) The plan only covers State and local government employers and employees within the state. For additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/illinois.html.

    Subparts C Through FF [Removed] 20. Remove subparts C through FF. PART 1953—CHANGES TO STATE PLANS 21. The authority citation for part 1953 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 667); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).

    22. In § 1953.3, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 1953.3 General policies and procedures.

    (c) Plan supplement availability. The underlying documentation for identical plan changes shall be maintained by the State. Annually, States shall submit updated copies of the principal documents comprising the plan, or appropriate page changes, to the extent that these documents have been revised. To the extent possible, plan documents will be maintained and submitted by the State in electronic format and also made available in such manner.

    PART 1954—PROCEDURES FOR THE EVALUATION AND MONITORING OF APPROVED STATE PLANS 23. The authority citation for part 1954 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 667); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).

    Subpart A—General
    24. In § 1954.3, revise paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (iii) to read as follows:
    § 1954.3 Exercise of Federal discretionary authority.

    (d) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (ii) Subject to pertinent findings of effectiveness under this part, and approval under part 1953 of this chapter, Federal enforcement proceedings will not be initiated where an employer has posted the approved State poster in accordance with the applicable provisions of an approved State plan and § 1902.9 of this chapter.

    (iii) Subject to pertinent findings of effectiveness under this part, and approval under part 1953 of this chapter, Federal enforcement proceedings will not be initiated where an employer is in compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of an approved State plan as provided in § 1902.7 of this chapter.

    PART 1955—PROCEDURES FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL OF STATE PLANS 25. The authority citation for part 1955 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 8 and 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 657, 667); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).

    Subpart A—General
    26. In § 1955.2, revise paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
    § 1955.2 Definitions.

    (a) * * *

    (4) Developmental step includes, but is not limited to, those items listed in the published developmental schedule, or any revisions thereto, for each plan. A developmental step also includes those items in the plan as approved under section 18(c) of the Act, as well as those items in the approval decision which are subject to evaluations (see e.g., approval of Michigan plan), which were deemed necessary to make the State program at least as effective as the Federal program within the 3 year developmental period. (See part 1953 of this chapter.)

    PART 1956—STATE PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF STATE STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN STATES WITHOUT APPROVED PRIVATE EMPLOYEE PLANS 27. The authority citation for part 1956 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    Section 18 (29 U.S.C. 667), 29 CFR parts 1902 and 1955, and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).

    Subparts E Through I [Removed]
    28. Remove subparts E through I.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19225 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0337] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation, Tennessee River 647.0 to 648.0; Knoxville, TN AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation for all waters of the Tennessee River, beginning at mile marker 647.0 and ending at mile marker 648.0 on September 4-5, 2015. This special regulation is necessary to provide safety for the racers that will be participating in the “Racing on the Tennessee.” Entry into this area will be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective and will be enforced on September 4, 2015 through September 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-0337. To view documents mentioned in the 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 Petty Officer Vera Max, MSD Nashville, Nashville, TN, at 615-736-5421 or at [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because specifics associated with the “Racing on the Tennessee” event were not received in time to publish an NPRM and seek comments before the event. Publishing an NPRM and delaying the effective date of this rule to await public comments would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest since it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to provide for the safety of the racers participating in the event and the safety of spectators and waterway users.

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

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authority for this rule establishing a special local regulation are found in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorizes the Coast Guard to establish and define special local regulations for regattas under 33 CFR 100.

    The “Racing on the Tennessee” is an annual event being held on September 4 and 5, 2015. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Ohio Valley has determined that additional safety measures are necessary to protect race participants, spectators, and waterway users during this event. Therefore, the Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation for all waters of the Tennessee River beginning at mile marker 647.0 and ending at mile marker 648.0. This regulation will provide safety for the racers that will be participating in the “Racing on the Tennessee” and spectators and waterway users.

    C. Discussion of Temporary Final Rule

    The COTP Ohio Valley is establishing a special local regulated area for all waters of the Tennessee River beginning at mile marker 647.0 and ending at mile marker 648.0. Vessels or persons will not be permitted to enter into, depart from, or move within this area without permission from the COTP Ohio Valley or designated representative. Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the special local regulated area will be required to request permission from the COTP Ohio Valley, or designated representative. Requests for permission are submitted via VHF-FM Channel 13 or 16, or through Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley at 1-800-253-7465. This rule will be enforced from 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. on September 4 and 5, 2015. The COTP Ohio Valley will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the special local regulated area as well as of any changes in the planned schedule.

    E. Regulatory Analyses

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

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This 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.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit mile marker 647.0 to mile marker 648.0 on the Tennessee River, from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on September 4 and 5, 2015. This special local regulated area will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as it will be enforce for a limited period of time over two days. Additionally, although the special local regulated area will apply to the entire width of the river, traffic will be allowed to pass through the area with the permission of the COTP Ohio Valley or designated representative.

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

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might 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 will 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 rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the COTP Ohio Valley establishing a special local regulation for all waters of the Tennessee River beginning at mile marker 647.0 and ending at mile marker 648.0 to provide safety for the racers that will be participating in the “Racing on the Tennessee.” This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

    PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1233

    2. Temporary § 100.801T08-0337 is added to read as follows:
    § 100.35T08-0337 Special Local Regulation; Tennessee River Mile 647.0 to 648.0, Knoxville, TN.

    (a) Regulated area. The following location is a regulated area: All waters of the Tennessee River beginning at mile marker 647.0 and ending at mile marker 648.0.

    (b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. on September 4 and 5, 2015.

    (c) Special local regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 100.35 as well as the regulations in this section apply to the Regulated Area.

    (2) Entry into the Regulated Area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative.

    (3) The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notice to mariners of the enforcement period for the special local regulation.

    (4) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the Regulated Area must request permission from the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative. U.S. Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley may be contacted on VHF Channel 13 or 16, or at 1-800-253-7465.

    (5) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley and designated U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel. On-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard.

    Dated: July 13, 2015. R.V. Timme, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20406 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2013-1060; 1625-AA00] Safety Zones; Eighth Coast Guard District Annual and Recurring Safety Zones Update AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is amending and updating its current list of recurring safety zone regulations that take place in the Eighth Coast Guard District area of responsibility (AOR). This final rule informs the public of regularly scheduled events that require additional safety measures through establishing a safety zone. Through this final rule, the list of recurring safety zones is updated with revisions, additional events, and removal of events that no longer take place in the Eighth Coast Guard District AOR. When these safety zones are enforced, vessel traffic is restricted from specified areas. Additionally, this one rulemaking project reduces administrative costs involved in producing a separate rule for each individual recurring safety zone and serves to provide notice of the known recurring safety zones throughout the year.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective August 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of Docket Number [USCG-2013-1060]. 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 Shelley R. Miller, Eighth Coast Guard District Waterways Management Division, (504) 671-2139 or email, [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 BNM Broadcast Notice to Mariners COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register LNM Local Notice to Mariners NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard preceded this final rule with an interim final rule with request for comments. The interim rule was published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2014, [79 FR 22398]. The interim rule established separate tables for each of the Sectors operating within the Coast Guard's Eighth District and updated the list of recurring safety zones under 33 CFR 165. Although no adverse comments were received, some comments to further update the recurring list were received. Because the interim rule and now this final rule establish separate tables for each Sector within the Eighth District, further updates will now be made by each Sector individually, impacting only their table of recurring safety zones.

    The list of annual and recurring safety zones occurring in the Eighth Coast Guard District AOR is published under 33 CFR 165.801. That list was originally created May 16, 2012 through a previous rulemaking, [77 FR 2876] and received no adverse comments.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define regulatory safety zones. The Coast Guard is amending and updating the safety zone regulations under 33 CFR part 165 to include the most up to date list of recurring safety zones for events held on or around navigable waters within the Eighth Coast Guard District. These events include air shows, fireworks displays, and other marine related events requiring a limited access area restricting vessel traffic for safety purposes. The list under 33 CFR 165.801 requires amending to provide new information on existing safety zones, and updating to include new safety zones expected to recur annually or biannually and to remove safety zones that are no longer required. Issuing individual regulations for each new safety zone, amendment, or removal of an existing safety zone creates unnecessary administrative costs and burdens. This single rulemaking considerably reduces administrative overhead and provides the public with notice through publication in the Federal Register of the upcoming recurring safety zone regulations.

    C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    No adverse comments were received. Some comments regarding further updates to the recurring list were received. Because the interim rule and now this final rule establish separate tables for each Sector within the Eighth District, further updates will now be made by each sector individually, impacting only their table of recurring safety zones.

    No changes to the rule have been made from the interim rule and request for comments.

    D. Regulatory Analyses

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

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

    This rule establishes safety zones limiting access to certain areas under 33 CFR 165 within the Eighth Coast Guard District. The effect of this rulemaking will not be significant because these safety zones are limited in scope and duration.

    Additionally, the public is given advance notification through local forms of notice, the Federal Register, and/or Notices of Enforcement and thus will be able to plan operations around the safety zones in advance. Deviation from the safety zones established through this rulemaking may be requested from the appropriate COTP and requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

    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 may affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone areas during periods of enforcement. The safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they are limited in scope and will be in effect for short periods of time. Before the enforcement period, the Coast Guard COTP will issue maritime advisories widely available to waterway users. Deviation from the safety zones established through this rulemaking may be requested from the appropriate COTP and requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

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

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children

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

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    12. Energy Effects

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

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have 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 is categorically excluded from further review under section 2.B.2 figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Commandant Instruction because it involves the establishment of safety zones. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under the ADDRESSES.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    Accordingly, the interim rule amending 33 CFR part 165 that published at 79 FR 22398 on April 22, 2014, is adopted as a final rule without change.

    Dated: July 27, 2015. D.R. Callahan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20250 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0602; FRL-9932-39-Region 7] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri, Controlling Emissions During Episodes of High Air Pollution Potential AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Missouri and received by EPA on December 17, 2013, pertaining to Missouri's regulation “Controlling Emissions During Episodes of High Air Pollution Potential.” This regulation specifies conditions that establish air pollution alerts and emergency alert levels, and associated procedures and emission reduction objectives statewide. This action revises the SIP by amending an existing table in the regulation, clarifying requirements of the regulation related to emission reduction plans and other provisions, and makes administrative and format changes, all consistent with Federal regulations.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on September 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0602. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy Bhesania, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913-551-7147, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document “we”, “us”, or “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

    I. What is being addressed in this document? II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? III. EPA's Response to Comments IV. What action is EPA taking? I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to the Missouri SIP received by EPA on December 17, 2013, pertaining to Missouri regulation 10 CSR 10-6.130, “Controlling Emissions During Episodes of High Air Pollution Potential.” This regulation specifies conditions that establish air pollution alerts and emergency alert levels, and associated procedures and emission reduction objectives statewide. This action revises the SIP by amending an existing table in the regulation, clarifying requirements of the regulation related to emission reduction plans and other provisions, and makes administrative and format changes all consistent with Federal regulations. EPA proposed approval of this rule on November 4, 2014 at 79 FR 65362.

    Specifically, in subsection (1)(A), the regulation is being revised to clarify the applicability of the regulation to all sources and premises throughout the entire state with emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) or Particulate Matter—10 Micron (PM10) and 2.5 Micron (PM2.5) that contribute to the air quality levels in the state. This clarification is consistent with federal regulations regarding prevention of air pollution emergency episodes found in 40 CFR part 51, subpart H.

    In addition, specific terms in this regulation that were previously defined in section (2) have now been removed and placed in Missouri regulation 10 CSR 10-6.020, “Definitions and Common Reference Tables.”

    In section (3) of the regulation, table A is being amended to remove the specific breakpoint values for each relevant pollutant but retains the Air Quality Index (AQI) range values and categories for each pollutant. Because the AQI breakpoint values are updated each time a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) is revised, removing these values from the table eliminates unnecessary updates to this table. The AQI breakpoint values are established when EPA takes final action to revise a NAAQS. In subparagraph (3)(A)2., Missouri identifies that these breakpoint values are codified in 40 CFR part 58, appendix G and therefore applicable to this state regulation Missouri's SIP approved regulation 10 CSR 10-6.010, Ambient Air Quality Standards, adopts EPA's most recent air quality standards and thus associated AQI breakpoint values. Therefore there is no need for this regulation being amended as part of today's action, to also contain these breakpoint values. This revision to the regulation does not alter any provisions or applicability of the regulation.

    The conditions that are listed for alert level categories are being moved from a narrative outline format into a table format in subsection (3)(B), table B, to provide more clarity regarding the specific applicable conditions. The requirement for an air stagnation advisory to be in effect in order to trigger an alert has been removed from all alert level categories thus, the conditions that are required to establish an alert are more easily triggered.

    The procedures established for addressing alert level conditions are being moved from a narrative outline into a table format in subsection (3)(C), table C, to provide clarity on applicable procedures. The alert level procedures associated with an orange alert which are currently listed in the regulation have been removed. These orange alert procedures were inadvertently retained when the state revised their regulation in 2002 to be consistent with revised Federal regulations by updating the formally called Pollution Standards Index (PSI) to the AQI standards and procedures as codified in 40 CFR part 58, appendix G. EPA took action to approve Missouri's SIP revision on March 18, 2003 (68 FR 12829). Establishing orange alert procedures are not a Federal requirement. Today's action amends the SIP to correct this error. This action does not alter the stringency of the regulation.

    Additional clarity is being added to section (4) of the regulation addressing reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The alert plan requirements that are outlined in section (3) of the regulation are being moved to a table format, tables D, E, and F. These tables retain the same objectives as previously contained in the regulation, only modified in format and moved to section (4) of the regulation with the exception of one red alert procedure. The red alert procedure which previously outlined provisions for the director to request all entertainment functions and facilities be closed has been removed from the regulation. This procedure is not a requirement of Federal regulations for red alert procedures, and therefore remains consistent with Federal requirements. This does not alter the stringency of the regulation. This procedure remains applicable for maroon level procedures.

    II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), including section 110 and implementing regulations. These modifications will not adversely affect air quality and will not relax the SIP.

    III. EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period on EPA's proposed regulation opened November 4, 2014, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed on December 4, 2014 (79 FR 65362). During this period, EPA received two comment letters. The first letter is in support of EPA's action and therefore no response to the comment is necessary. The comments included in the second letter are addressed below.

    Comment 1: The commenter expressed overall agreement with EPA actions, however requests EPA to “clarify certain aspects of the emergency episode program as well as the Air Quality Index (AQI) values derived from the significant harm levels (SHLs) for the PM2.5 NAAQS.”

    Response 1: Because this comment is not directly related to EPA's proposed action on November 4, 2014, no changes will be made in response to this comment. In this action, EPA is evaluating specific revisions to the existing SIP in Missouri. EPA is not addressing other Federal regulations that govern issues such as the AQI or SHLs for PM2.5. EPA provides the following background and references as guidance to address the commenter's request to clarify certain aspects of the emergency episode program.

    EPA promulgated regulations for emergency episodes in 40 CFR part 51, subpart H (51.150 through 51.153). The regulations address the following:

    • 51.150—how regions are classified for sulfur oxides (SOX), PM, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and ozone;

    • 51.151—the requirement for a contingency plan for any region classified as Priority I to prevent air pollution levels from reaching the significant harm levels (SHLs) established therein;

    • 51.152—the specific content requirements for a contingency plan; a requirement that regions classified as Priority IA or II have a contingency plan that addresses a subset of those content requirements; a provision that regions “classified Priority III do not need to develop episode plans;” and an exemption mechanism for the Administrator; and

    • 51.153—how states should review the classification of regions using the most recent three years of data; and a requirement to revise emergency episode plans if a higher classification is warranted by the recent air pollution levels.

    EPA has issued several memoranda that provide guidance on emergency episode planning to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G), including the 2007 Infrastructure SIP Guidance for the 1997 ozone and 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS,1 the 2009 Infrastructure SIP Guidance for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,2 the 2011 Infrastructure SIP Guidance for the 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS,3 and the 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2), and all future NAAQS. The latter represents EPA's most recent guidance.4

    1 “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” William T. Harnett, Director, EPA's Air Quality Policy Division, October 2, 2007. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/110a_sip_guid_fin100207.pdf.

    2 “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” William T. Harnett, Director, EPA's Air Quality Policy Division, September 25, 2009. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf.

    3 “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, October 14, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/pdfs/20111014infrastructure.pdf.

    4 “Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, September 13, 2013. http://www.epa.gov/oar/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf.

    Comment 2: The commenter also stated that EPA incorrectly stated in its November 4, 2014, proposed action that Missouri's regulations are “consistent” with Federal regulations that meet the breakpoint values in subpart H.

    Response 2: When stating the state's action was ‘consistent’ with federal regulations, EPA was specifically referring to the Missouri revision in subsection (1)(A) of the regulation which was revised to clarify the applicability of the regulation to all sources and premises through the entire state. EPA believes that this specific revision to subsection (1)(A) of the regulation is in fact consistent with subpart H of 40 CFR part 51. This subsection of Missouri's regulation does not relate to the AQI table as the commenter suggests.

    Comment 3: The commenter implied that Missouri was removing SHLs from their regulation and was instead relying on AQI breakpoint values to determine the levels at which emergency episodes occur.

    Response 3: Missouri's regulations do not specifically include SHL values, and therefore EPA is not taking action to remove SHLs. In addition, for identified priority areas in Missouri, the state is not changing these classifications or supplanting these priority levels with the AQI.

    Comment 4: The commenter stated that AQI breakpoint values are not updated each time the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are revised.

    Response 4: The January 15, 2013, final rule for the PM2.5 standards updated the AQI breakpoint values for PM2.5. See 78 FR 3086. This is consistent with past EPA actions.

    Comment 5: The fifth and sixth paragraphs of the commenter's letter expresses concern about EPA's historical actions related to the emergency episode program and that EPA has not determined a SHL (and thus AQI breakpoint values) specifically for PM2.5.

    Response 5: Because this comment is not related to EPA's proposed action on November 4, 2014, no changes will be made to EPA's action in response to this comment. Further, because EPA is not taking action to address or revise any SHL in Missouri's regulation, no changes will be made to EPA's action in response to this aspect of the comment. See response to comment 1 above for further information on EPA's historical actions related to the emergency episode program. In addition, while the regulations in 40 CFR part 51, subpart H do not address PM2.5 specifically and do not identify a significant harm level or priority classification levels for PM2.5, the EPA has recommended to states, through the September 25, 2009 guidance, which remains in effect, that states only need to develop contingency plans for any area that has a monitored and recorded 24-hour PM2.5 levels greater than 140.4 µg/m3 since 2006. The EPA has evaluated PM2.5 regulatory monitoring data in Missouri since 2006 and have confirmed that no values greater than 140.4 µg/m3 have been recorded. Accordingly, EPA believes that there are no areas in Missouri for which a contingency plan is required at this time. If there were an area for which such a contingency plan were necessary, however, EPA's 2013 infrastructure SIP guidance states, “the EPA believes that the central components of a contingency plan would be to reduce emissions from the source(s) at issue (if necessary by curtailing operations of . . . PM2.5 sources) and public communication as needed.” Thus, the absence of a significant harm level and classification levels for PM2.5 are not relevant, if Missouri were required to develop a contingency plan for purposes of PM2.5, which it is not at this time. However, EPA notes that the state regulation is applicable to “all emissions” including PM2.5 and therefore the provisions of the state regulation apply to PM2.5 as well.

    Comment 6: The commenter requests clarification regarding the “placeholder” AQI levels and SHLs for PM2.5 remain appropriate for the nation and for Missouri.

    Response 6: EPA has previously approved Missouri's emergency episode plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G), See 78 FR 37457. For a detailed rationale on EPA's analysis of how Missouri meets these requirements, see EPA's proposed action on April 10, 2013 (78 FR 21281).

    In response to the commenter's broader concern of the appropriateness of the AQI levels in relation to SHLs for PM2.5, EPA directs the commenter to EPA's February 2007 issue paper on revising the AQI and setting a SHLs for PM2.5 as previously referenced in comment 1.

    Comment 7: The commenter stated that, “EPA should not approve state regulations that are merely `consistent with' federal regulations when EPA clearly set out ‘placeholder’ values and not real values that would protect the public health and welfare.”

    Response 7: Because this comment is not related to EPA's action on November 4, 2014, no changes will be made in response to this comment. EPA directs the commenter to EPA's February 2007 issue paper on revising the AQI and setting a SHL for PM2.5 as previously referenced in comment 1.

    Comment 8: The commenter requested that EPA should explain why it has not revised the SHLs for PM2.5 in 15 years.

    Response 8: Because this comment is not related to EPA's action on November 4, 2014, no changes will be made in response to this comment. EPA directs the commenter to response number 1 and 5 above for further explanation of historical actions on EPA's emergency episode planning requirements and guidance.

    IV. What action is EPA taking?

    Upon review and consideration of comments received, EPA is taking final action to revise the Missouri SIP pertaining to Missouri regulation 10 CSR 10-6.130, “Controlling Emissions During Episodes of High Air Pollution Potential.” Based upon review of the state's SIP revision and relevant requirements of the CAA, EPA believes that this revision meets applicable requirements and does not adversely impact air quality in Missouri.

    Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 19, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 4, 2015. Mark Hague, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et. seq.

    Subpart AA—Missouri
    2. In § 52.1320 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entry for 10-6.130 as follows:
    § 52.1320 Identification of plan.

    (c)* * *

    EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations Missouri citation Title State
  • effective date
  • EPA approval date Explanation
    Missouri Department of Natural Resources * * * * * * * Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of Missouri * * * * * * * 10-6.130 Controlling Emissions During Episodes of High Air Pollution Potential 12/30/13 8/18/15, [Insert Federal Register citation] * * * * * * *
    [FR Doc. 2015-20249 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 150623545-5545-01] RIN 0648-XE015 Revisions to Framework Adjustment 53 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and Sector Annual Catch Entitlements; Updated Annual Catch Limits for Sectors and the Common Pool for Fishing Year 2015 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule; adjustment to specifications.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on the final Northeast multispecies sector rosters submitted as of May 1, 2015, we are adjusting the fishing year 2015 specification of annual catch limits for commercial groundfish vessels, as well as sector annual catch entitlements and common pool allocations for groundfish stocks. This revision to fishing year 2015 catch levels is necessary to account for changes in the number of participants electing to fish in either sectors or the common pool fishery. This action details unused sector quotas that may be carried over from fishing year 2014 to fishing year 2015. This action also reduces the fishing year 2015 common pool allocation of Eastern Georges Bank cod and adjusts common pool incidental catch limits to account for a common pool fishing year 2014 overage.

    DATES:

    Effective August 17, 2015, through April 30, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Whitmore, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9128.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) developed Amendment 16 to the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP), in part, to establish a process for setting groundfish annual catch limits (also referred to as ACLs or catch limits) and accountability measures. Framework Adjustment (Framework) 53 set annual catch limits for groundfish stocks and three jointly managed U.S./Canada stocks for fishing year 2015. We recently approved Framework 53, which became effective on May 1, 2015 (80 FR 25110).

    We also recently approved fishing year 2015 sector operations plans and allocations (80 FR 25143; May 2, 2015; “sector final rule”). A sector receives an allocation of each stock, or annual catch entitlement (referred to as ACE, or allocation), based on its members' catch histories. State-operated permit banks also receive an allocation that can be transferred to qualifying sector vessels. The sum of all sector and state-operated permit bank allocations is referred to as the sector sub-ACL. Whatever groundfish allocations remain after sectors and state-operated permit banks receive their allocations are then allocated to the common pool (i.e., vessels not enrolled in a sector).

    This rule adjusts the fishing year 2015 sector and common pool allocations based on final sector membership as of May 1, 2015. Since the final rules are not effective until the beginning of the fishing year (May 1), permits enrolled in a sector and the vessels associated with those permits have until April 30, the last day prior to the beginning of a new fishing year, to withdraw from a sector and fish in the common pool. As a result, the actual sector enrollment for the new fishing year is unknown when the specifications (in this case, Framework 53) and sector final rules publish. To address this issue, each year we publish an adjustment rule modifying sector and common pool allocations based on final sector enrollment. If the sector allocation increases as a result of sector membership changes, the common pool allocation decreases—the opposite is true as well. The Framework 53 and the fishing year 2015 sector proposed and final rules both explained that sector enrollments may change and that there would be a need to adjust the sub-ACLs and ACEs accordingly.

    Adjustments to sector ACEs and the sub-ACLs for sectors and the common pool are typically minimal as historically there has been little change in sector enrollment. Tables 1, 2, and 3 explain the revised fishing year 2015. Table 4 compares the allocation changes between the sector final rule and this adjustment rule. Vessels currently enrolled in sectors have accounted for approximately 99 percent of the historical groundfish landings. This year's sector final rule specified sector ACEs based on the 842 permits enrolled in sectors on February 25, 2015. As of May 1, 2015, there are 838 NE multispecies permits enrolled in sectors, which means four permits elected to leave sectors and operate in common pool for fishing year 2015.

    BILLING CODE 3510-22-P ER18AU15.005 ER18AU15.006 ER18AU15.007 ER18AU15.008

    We have completed fishing year 2014 data reconciliation with sectors and determined final fishing year 2014 sector catch and the amount of quota that sectors may carry from fishing year 2014 into fishing year 2015. A recent emergency rule (79 FR 36433; June 27, 2014) described changes to carryover and catch accounting in response to litigation by Conservation Law Foundation (Conservation Law Foundation v. Pritzker, et al. (Case No. 1:13-CV-0821-JEB)). This rule ensures that catch does not exceed the allowable biological catch for any stock. Because of this, the maximum carryover for certain stocks may be lower than what a sector expects. Table 5 includes the maximum amount of quota that sectors may carry over from fishing year 2014 into fishing year 2015. Table 6 includes the de minimis amount of quota that sectors may carry over from fishing year 2014 into fishing year 2015. Tables 7 and 8 list the final ACE available to sectors for fishing year 2015, including carryover.

    ER18AU15.009 ER18AU15.010 ER18AU15.011 ER18AU15.012

    This rule also reduces the Eastern GB cod common pool sub-ACL for fishing year 2015 due to a fishing year 2014 overage (Tables 9 and 10). When the common pool sub-ACL for any stock is exceeded in one fishing year, the accountability measures in the FMP require us to reduce the common pool sub-ACL by the amount of the overage in the next fishing year. The 2.8 mt fishing year 2014 common pool sub-ACL for Eastern GB cod was exceeded by 1.3 mt (48 percent). Therefore, this action reduces the initially allocated 2.7 mt fishing year 2015 Eastern GB cod common pool sub-ACL by 1.3 mt, leaving an adjusted allocation of 1.4 mt for the remainder of the fishing year.

    Framework 53 specified incidental catch limits (or incidental total allowable catches, “TACs”) applicable to the common pool and groundfish Special Management Programs for fishing year 2015, including the B day-at-sea (DAS) Program. Because these incidental catch limits are based on the common-pool allocation, they also must be revised to match current common pool enrollment allocation and, in this instance, to account for the Eastern GB cod accountability measure for fishing year 2015. Final common pool trimester quotas (including adjustments for the Eastern GB cod overage) and incidental catch limits are included in Tables 11-15 below.

    This is only a temporary final rule. After we finish reconciling differences in fishing year 2014 catch accounting between our data and each sector manager's data, each sector will have 2 weeks to trade its fishing year 2014 ACE to account for any overages. After that 2-week trading window, a sector that still has exceeded its fishing year 2014 allocation will have its fishing year 2015 allocation reduced, pursuant to regulatory requirements. Because data reconciliation and the 2-week trading window take place after the new fishing year beings, we reserve 20 percent of each sector's fishing year 2015 allocation until fishing year 2014 catch data are reconciled. Sectors can carryover up to 10 percent of their fishing year 2014 ACE, or an amount of ACE that does not result in exceeding the allowable biological catch, into fishing year 2015. We will publish a final follow-up rule detailing any carryover of fishing year 2014 sector allocation or reduction in fishing year 2014 allocation resulting from sectors under or overharvesting their allocations.

    ER18AU15.013 BILLING CODE 3510-22-C Table 12—Fishing Year 2015 Common Pool Incidental Catch TACs Stock Percentage of common pool
  • sub-ACL
  • Incidental catch TAC
  • (mt)
  • GB cod 2 0.75 GOM cod 1 0.06 GB yellowtail flounder 2 0.08 CC/GOM yellowtail flounder 1 0.21 American Plaice 5 1.35 Witch Flounder 5 0.7 SNE/MA winter flounder 1 1.59
    Table 13—Distribution of Common Pool Incidental Catch TACs to Each Special Management Program Stock Regular B
  • DAS program
  • (%)
  • Closed Area I hook gear
  • haddock SAP
  • (%)
  • Eastern U.S./CA haddock SAP
  • (%)
  • Southern closed Area II haddock SAP
    GB cod 50 16 34 NA GOM cod 100 NA NA NA GB yellowtail flounder 50 NA 50 NA CC/GOM yellowtail flounder 100 NA NA NA American Plaice 100 NA NA NA Witch Flounder 100 NA NA NA SNE/MA winter flounder 100 NA NA NA
    Table 14—Fishing Year 2015 Common Pool Incidental Catch TACs for Each Special Management Program [(mt)] Stock Regular B DAS program Closed Area I hook gear
  • haddock SAP
  • Eastern
  • U.S./Canada
  • haddock SAP
  • GB cod 0.38 0.12 0.26 GOM cod 0.06 NA NA GB yellowtail flounder 0.04 NA 0.04 CC/GOM yellowtail flounder 0.21 NA NA American Plaice 1.35 NA NA Witch Flounder 0.70 NA NA SNE/MA winter flounder 1.59 NA NA
    Table 15—Fishing Year 2015 Common Pool Regular B DAS Program Quarterly Incidental Catch TACs [(mt)] Stock 1st Quarter
  • (13%)
  • 2nd Quarter
  • (29%)
  • 3rd Quarter
  • (29%)
  • 4th Quarter
  • (29%)
  • GB cod 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.11 GOM cod 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 GB yellowtail flounder 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 CC/GOM yellowtail flounder 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.06 American Plaice 0.18 0.39 0.39 0.39 Witch Flounder 0.09 0.20 0.20 0.20 SNE/MA winter flounder 0.21 0.46 0.46 0.46
    Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), we find good cause to waive prior public notice and opportunity for public comment on the catch limit and allocation adjustments because allowing time for notice and comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. We also find good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), so that this final rule may become effective upon filing.

    There are several reasons that notice and comment are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. First, the proposed and final rules for fishing year 2015 sector operations plans and contracts explained the need and likelihood for adjustments of sector and common pool allocations based on final sector rosters. No comments were received on the potential for these adjustments, which provide an accurate accounting of a sector's or common pool's allocation at this time. Furthermore, we have followed a similar process since Amendment 16 was implemented in 2010; this annual adjustment action is anticipated by industry. The accountability measure and adjustment process to account for the fishing year 2014 Eastern Georges Bank cod overage was also already subject to notice and comment during Amendment 16 development and implementation. Second, these adjustments are based on either objective sector enrollment data or a pre-determined accountability measure and are not subject to NMFS' discretion, so there would be no benefit to allowing time for prior notice and comment. Third, a delay would potentially impair achievement of the management plan's objectives for the common pool of preventing overfishing and achieving optimum yield by staying within ACLs or allocations. Finally, if this rule is not effective immediately, the sector and common pool vessels will be operating under incorrect information on the catch limits for each stock for sectors and the common pool. This could cause negative economic impacts to the both sectors and the common pool, depending on the size of the allocation, the degree of change in the allocation, and the catch rate of a particular stock.

    The catch limit and allocation adjustments are not controversial and the need for them was clearly explained in the proposed and final rules for fishing year 2015 sector operations plans and contracts. Adjustments for overages are also explained in detail in the Amendment 16 proposed and final rules. As a result, NE multispecies permit holders are expecting these adjustments and awaiting their implementation. Fishermen may make both short- and long-term business decisions based on the catch limits in a given sector or the common pool. Any delays in adjusting these limits may cause the affected fishing entities to slow down, or speed up, their fishing activities during the interim period before this rule becomes effective. Both of these reactions could negatively affect the fishery and the businesses and communities that depend on them. Therefore, it is important to implement adjusted catch limits and allocations as soon as possible. For these reasons, we are waiving the public comment period and delay in effectiveness for this rule, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and (d), respectively.

    Because advanced notice and the opportunity for public comment are not required under the Administrative Procedure Act, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., do not apply to this rule. Therefore, no final regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 11, 2015. Eileen Sobeck, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20303 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 159 Tuesday, August 18, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 185 [Document No. AMS-TM-10-0088; TM-08-07] RIN 0581-AC83 Farmers' Market Promotion Program Regulation; Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    This document withdraws a proposed rule published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2011 to establish a regulation for the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) Farmers' Market Promotion Program (FMPP). The FMPP is a competitive grant program that makes funds available to eligible entities for projects to establish, expand, and promote farmers markets, roadside stands, community-supported agriculture programs, agritourism activities, and other direct producer-to-consumer marketing opportunities. The proposed rule would have established eligibility and application requirements, the review and approval process, and grant administration procedures for the FMPP. Additionally, the proposed rule announced AMS's intent to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a new information collection for the FMPP. AMS is consolidating the procedures for all of its grant programs, including the FMPP, into one regulation. Thus, a separate regulation for the FMPP is no longer needed and the 2011 proposed rule is withdrawn.

    DATES:

    Effective August 19, 2015, the proposed rule published on January 19, 2011 (76 FR 3046) is withdrawn.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Trista Etzig, Grants Division Director, AMS Transportation and Marketing Program, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0264, Washington, DC 20250-0264; Telephone: (202) 720-8356; Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The FMPP grant program is authorized under the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act of 1976 (7 U.S.C. 3001-3006) (1976 Act) and the amendment to the 1976 Act, the Farmers' Market Promotion Program (7 U.S.C. 3005).

    This action withdraws a proposed rule published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2011 (76 FR 3046) to establish a regulation for AMS's FMPP. The FMPP is a competitive grant program that makes funds available to eligible entities for projects to establish, expand, and promote farmers markets, roadside stands, community-supported agriculture programs, agritourism activities, and other direct producer-to-consumer marketing opportunities. The proposed rule would have established eligibility and application requirements, the review and approval process, and grant administration procedures for the FMPP. Additionally, the proposed rule announced AMS's intent to request approval from the OMB for a new information collection for the FMPP.

    During the comment period, January 19 through March 21, 2011, the U.S. Department of Agriculture received 11 timely comments. These comments may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. One comment generally opposed the proposed rule and one duplicated a comment already submitted. Of the remaining nine comments received, seven addressed multiple sections of the proposed rule and the others provided recommendations regarding how to implement the FMPP program which were outside the scope of the proposed rule.

    AMS is consolidating the procedures for all of its grant programs, including the FMPP, into one regulation. Thus, a separate regulation for the FMPP is no longer needed and the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2011 (76 FR 3046), is hereby withdrawn.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 185

    Farmers' Market Promotion Program, FMPP, FMPP guidelines, FMPP application requirements, FMPP voluntary narrative and budget forms, Confidentiality, FMPP grant agreement, and FMPP awardee grant acceptance terms and conditions.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 3001-3006.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20384 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 984 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-15-0026; FV15-984-1 PR] Walnuts Grown in California; Increased Assessment Rate AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the California Walnut Board (Board) to increase the assessment rate established for the 2015-16 and subsequent marketing years from $0.0189 to $0.0379 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. The Board locally administers the marketing order and is comprised of growers and handlers of walnuts operating within the area of production. Assessments upon walnut handlers are used by the Board to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The marketing year begins September 1 and ends August 31. The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by September 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. Comments should reference the document number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments submitted in response to this proposed rule will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be made public on the Internet at the address provided above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Terry Vawter, Senior Marketing Specialist, or Martin Engeler, Regional Manager, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected].

    Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 984, as amended (7 CFR part 984), regulating the handling of walnuts grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

    The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, California walnut handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as proposed herein would be applicable to all assessable walnuts beginning on September 1, 2015, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

    The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

    This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Board for the 2015-16 and subsequent marketing years from $0.0189 to $0.0379 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts.

    The California walnut marketing order provides authority for the Board, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Board are growers and handlers of California walnuts. They are familiar with the Board's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

    For the 2013-14 and subsequent marketing years, the Board recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate of $0.0189 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts that would continue in effect from year to year unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Board or other information available to USDA.

    The Board met on June 4, 2015, and unanimously recommended 2015-16 expenditures of $22,668,980, and an assessment rate of $0.0379 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $9,861,810. The assessment rate of $0.0379 is $0.019 per pound higher than the rate currently in effect. The quantity of assessable walnuts for the 2015-16 marketing year is estimated at 518,000 tons inshell or 466,200,000 kernelweight pounds, which is the five-year average of walnut production. At the recommended higher assessment rate of $0.0379 per kernelweight pound, the Board should collect approximately $17,668,980 in assessment income. The Board also recommended using $5,000,000 from its monetary reserve to help fund the increase in proposed expenditures. Assessments and funds from the reserve would be adequate to cover its 2015-16 budgeted expenses of $22,668,980.

    The Board noted that sales of California walnuts in the domestic market have been declining in recent years, and believes that more market development and promotion would reverse the trend. Thus, they are committed to increasing expenditures on domestic marketing promotion projects and programs.

    The following table compares major budget expenditures recommended by the Board for the 2014-15 and 2015-16 marketing years:

    Budget expense categories 2014-15 2015-16 Employee Expenses $1,711,000 $1,846,500 Travel/Board Expenses/Annual Audit 190,000 191,000 Office Expenses 241,000 254,000 Controlled Purchases 10,000 10,000 Crop Acreage Survey 0 100,000 Crop Estimate 126,000 130,000 Production Research Director 94,500 94,500 Production Research 1,600,000 1,700,000 Sustainability Project 75,000 75,000 Grades and Standards Research 600,000 600,000 Domestic Market Development 5,742,000 18,478,440 Reserve for Contingency 166,310 32,790

    The assessment rate recommended by the Board was derived by dividing anticipated assessment revenue needed by estimated shipments of California walnuts certified as merchantable. The 518,000 ton (inshell) estimate for merchantable shipments is an average of shipments during five prior years, and that volume has routinely been used in recent years to formulate the crop estimate. Pursuant to § 984.51(b) of the order, this figure is converted to a merchantable kernelweight basis using a factor of 0.45 (518,000 tons × 2,000 pounds per ton × 0.45), which yields 466,200,000 kernelweight pounds. At $0.0379 per pound, the new assessment rate should generate $17,668,980 in assessment income. Along with $5,000,000 from the Board's reserve fund, this assessment rate would allow the Board to cover its expenses.

    Section 984.69 of the order authorizes the Board to carry over excess funds into subsequent marketing years as a reserve, provided that funds already in the reserve do not exceed approximately two years' budgeted expenses. By using $5,000,000 from their reserve, the Board is ensuring that the funds within the reserve remain within the requirements of the marketing order.

    The proposed assessment rate would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Board or other available information.

    Although this assessment rate would be effective for an indefinite period, the Board would continue to meet prior to or during each marketing year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Board meetings are available from the Board or USDA. Board meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Board recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Board's 2015-16 budget and those for subsequent marketing years would be reviewed, and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

    The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

    There are approximately 4,500 growers of California walnuts in the production area and approximately 90 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines small businesses (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000.

    According to USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service's (NASS's) 2012 Census of Agriculture, approximately 89 percent of California's walnut farms were smaller than 100 acres. Further, NASS reports that the average yield for 2014 was 1.95 tons per acre, and the average price received for 2013 was $3,710 per ton. No average price for 2014 has been reported yet.

    A 100-acre farm with an average yield of 1.95 tons per acre would therefore have been expected to produce about 195 tons of walnuts during 2010-11. At $3,710 per ton, that farm's production would have had an approximate value of $723,450. Since Census of Agriculture information indicates that the majority of California's walnut farms are smaller than 100 acres, it could be concluded that the majority of the growers had receipts of less than $723,450 in 2014-15, well below the SBA threshold of $750,000. Thus, the majority of California's walnut growers would be considered small growers according to SBA's definition.

    According to information supplied by the Board, approximately two-thirds of California's walnut handlers shipped merchantable walnuts valued under $7,000,000 during the 2014-15 marketing year; and would, therefore, be considered small handlers according to the SBA definition.

    This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Board and collected from handlers for the 2015-16 and subsequent marketing years from $0.0189 to $0.0379 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. The Board unanimously recommended 2015-16 expenditures of $22,668,980 and an assessment rate of $0.0379 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts. The proposed assessment rate of $0.0379 is $0.019 higher than the 2014-15 rate. The quantity of assessable walnuts for the 2015-16 marketing year is estimated at 518,000 tons inshell weight, or 466,200,000 kernelweight pounds. Thus, the $0.0379 rate should provide $17,668,980 in assessment income.

    The Board also recommended using $5,000,000 from its monetary reserve to augment the assessment income. Thus, assessments plus the $5,000,000 would be adequate to meet this year's expenses. The increased assessment rate is primarily due to increased domestic marketing promotion and programs. The Board has become concerned with the declining sales of California walnuts in the domestic market, and believes that sagging sales can be improved through increased promotional activities. Thus, they recommended an increase in domestic market development from approximately $5.7 million during the 2014-15 marketing year to approximately $18.4 million for the 2015-16 marketing year.

    The major expenses for the 2015-16 marketing year include: $1,846,500 for employee expenses; $191,000 for travel, board, and annual audit expenses; $254,000 for office expenses; $10,000 for controlled purchases; $100,000 for the crop acreage survey; $130,000 for the crop estimate; $94,500 for the salary of the Production Research Director; $1,700,000 for production research; $75,000 for a sustainability project; $600,000 for grades and standards research; $18,478,440 for domestic market development projects; and $32,790 for the contingency reserve.

    In comparison, these expenditures for the 2014-15 marketing year were: $1,711,000 for employee expenses; $190,000 for travel, board, and annual audit expenses; $241,000 for office expenses; $10,000 for controlled purchases; $126,000 for the crop estimate; $94,500 for the salary of the Production Research Director; $1,600,000 for production research; $75,000 for the sustainability project; $600,000 for grades and standards research; $5,742,000 for domestic market development projects; and $166,310 for the contingency reserve. There was no acreage survey expense in the 2014-15 marketing year.

    The Board reviewed and unanimously recommended 2015-16 expenditures of $22,668,980. Prior to arriving at this budget, the Board considered alternative expenditure levels, such as spending an additional $5,000,000, or $10,000,000 for domestic market development projects, as well as alternate assessment rate levels. They ultimately decided that the recommended expenditure and assessment levels were reasonable and necessary to assist in improving domestic sales, as well as properly administering the order. The assessment rate of $0.0379 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts was derived by dividing anticipated assessment revenue needed by expected shipments of California walnuts certified as merchantable. Merchantable shipments for the year are estimated at 466,200,000 pounds. It was determined that $17,668,980 in assessment income was needed, and assessment income combined with funds from the monetary reserve would allow the Board to cover its expenses of $22,668,980.

    The Board also considered information from various committees who deliberate and formulate their own budgets of expenses and make recommendations to the Board. The committees include the Market Development, Production Research, Budget and Personnel, and Grades and Standards committees.

    Unexpended funds may be retained in a financial reserve, provided that funds in the financial reserve do not exceed approximately two years' budgeted expenses.

    According to NASS, the season average grower prices for the years 2012 and 2013 were $3,030 and $3,710 per ton, respectively. No prices have yet been reported for 2014. These prices provide a range within which the 2015-16 season average price could fall. Dividing these average grower prices by 2,000 pounds per ton provides an inshell price per pound range of $1.52 to $1.86. Dividing these inshell per pound prices by the 0.45 conversion factor (inshell to kernelweight) established in the order yields a 2015-16 price range estimate of $3.38 to $4.13 per kernelweight pound of assessable walnuts.

    To calculate the percentage of grower revenue represented by the assessment rate, the assessment rate of $0.0379 per kernelweight pound is divided by the low and high estimates of the price range. The estimated assessment revenue for the 2015-16 marketing year as a percentage of total grower revenue will thus likely range between 0.92 and 1.11 percent.

    This action would increase the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to growers. However, these costs would be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the Board's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California walnut industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and encouraged to participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the June 4, 2015, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were free to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 (Walnuts Grown in California). No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

    This proposed rule would impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California walnut handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

    AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

    USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.

    A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingOrderSmallBusinessGuide. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. Thirty days is deemed appropriate because: (1) The 2015-16 marketing year begins on September 1, 2015, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each marketing year apply to all assessable walnuts handled during the year; (2) the Board needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses, which are incurred on a continuous basis; and (3) handlers are aware of this action, which was unanimously recommended by the Board at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 984

    Marketing agreements, Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Walnuts.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 984 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 984—WALNUTS GROWN IN CALIFORNIA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 984 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 601-674.

    2. Section 984.347 is revised to read as follows:
    § 984.347 Assessment rate.

    On and after September 1, 2015, an assessment rate of $0.0379 per kernelweight pound is established for California merchantable walnuts.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20395 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02--P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006] RIN: 1904-AD51 Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Reopening of public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 23, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of public meeting (NOPM) in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the framework document regarding energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. DOE also held a public meeting presenting the framework document on July 17, 2015. The comment period was scheduled to end August 7, 2015. After receiving a request for an additional two weeks to comment, DOE has decided to reopen the comment period for submitting comments and data in response to the framework document regarding energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. The comment period is extended to September 2, 2015.

    DATES:

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information in response to the framework document received no later than September 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are encouraged to submit comments electronically. However, comments may be submitted, identified by docket number EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006 and/or Regulation Identification Number (RIN) 1904-AD51, by any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include the docket number EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006 and/or RIN 1904-AD51 in the subject line of the message.

    Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-5B, Framework Document for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006 and/or RIN 1904-AD51, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. [Please note that comments and CDs sent by mail are often delayed and may be damaged by mail screening processes.]

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024. Telephone (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number and/or RIN for this rulemaking. No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted.

    Docket: The docket is available for review at www.regulations.gov, including Federal Register notices, framework document, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials throughout the rulemaking process. The regulations.gov Web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. The docket can be accessed by searching for docket number EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006 on the regulations.gov Web site. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, EE-5J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. Email: [email protected] Ms. Sarah Butler, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-1777. Email: [email protected]

    For information on how to submit or review public comments, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone (202) 586-2945. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On June 23, 2015, DOE published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of a framework document for potential energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. 80 FR 35886. This framework document details the analytical approach and scope of coverage for the rulemaking, and identifies several issues on which DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments.1 The notice also announced a public meeting to present the framework document, which was held on July 17, 2015. The notice provided for the submission of written comments by August 7, 2015.

    1 The framework document is available through DOE's Web site at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=110.

    On August 6, 2015, DOE received a request from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) requesting an additional two weeks to prepare comment. In this notice, DOE is reopening the public comment period to allow interested parties to provide DOE with comments and data in response to the methodologies presented in the framework document. DOE will consider any comments in response to the framework document received by midnight of September 2, 2015, and deems any comments received by that time to be timely submitted.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 12, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20381 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1496; Notice No. 25-15-07-SC] Special Conditions: Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 Airplanes, Side-Stick Controllers; Controllability and Maneuverability AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed special conditions.

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes special conditions for Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with side-stick controllers, instead of conventional-control wheel-and-column design, for pitch and roll control. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

    DATES:

    Send your comments on or before October 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-1496 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joe Jacobsen, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2011; facsimile (425) 227-1320.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

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

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

    Background

    On March 29, 2012, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation applied for a type certificate for their new Model GVII-G500 airplane. The Model GVII-G500 will be a large-cabin business jet with seating for 19 passengers. It will incorporate a low, swept-wing design with winglets and a T-tail. The powerplant will consist of two aft-fuselage-mounted Pratt & Whitney turbofan engines. Avionics will include four primary display units and multiple touchscreen controllers. The flight-control system is a three-axis, fly-by-wire (FBW) system incorporating active control/coupled side sticks.

    The Model GVII-G500 will have a wingspan of approximately 87 ft. and a length of just over 91 ft. Maximum takeoff weight will be approximately 76,850 lbs and maximum takeoff thrust will be approximately 15,135 lbs. Maximum range will be approximately 5,000 nm and maximum operating altitude will be 51,000 ft.

    The Model GVII-G500 airplane will incorporate a FBW flight-control system, through side-stick controllers, for pitch and roll control. Regulatory requirements, such as the pilot-control forces prescribed in the referenced regulations, are not applicable for the side-stick controller design. In addition, pilot-control authority may be uncertain because the side-stick controllers are not mechanically interconnected to flight controls as are conventional wheel-and-column controls.

    Type Certification Basis

    Under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Gulfstream must show that the Model GVII-G500 airplane meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, effective February 1, 1965, including Amendments 25-1 through 25-137; 14 CFR part 34, as amended by Amendments 34-1 through the most current amendment at time of design approval; and 14 CFR part 36, Amendment 36-29.

    In addition, the certification basis includes other regulations, special conditions, and exemptions that are not relevant to these proposed special conditions. Type Certificate no. TC-01-2010-0024 will be updated to include a complete description of the certification basis for this airplane model.

    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under § 21.16.

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

    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and proposed special conditions, Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36; and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

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

    Novel or Unusual Design Features

    Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

    Side-stick controllers incorporating fly-by-wire technology for pitch and roll control, in place of conventional wheel-and-column controls.

    Discussion

    These proposed special conditions for the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplane address the unique features of the side-stick controllers. The Model GVII-G500 airplane will incorporate side-stick controllers controlling a FBW flight-control system. The FBW control laws are designed to provide conventional flying qualities such as positive static longitudinal and lateral stability as prescribed in part 25, subpart B. However, the pilot-control forces prescribed in the referenced regulations are not applicable for the side-stick controller design.

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

    • The handling-qualities tasks and requirements of the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 Special Conditions and other 14 CFR part 25 requirements for stability, control, and maneuverability, including the effects of turbulence.

    • General ergonomics: Armrest comfort and support, local freedom of movement, displacement-angle suitability, and axis harmony.

    • Inadvertent pilot input in turbulence.

    • Inadvertent pitch and roll crosstalk from pilot inputs on the side-stick controller.

    Applicability

    As discussed above, these proposed special conditions apply to Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplanes. Should Gulfstream apply later for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the proposed special conditions would apply to that model as well.

    Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:

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

    The Proposed Special Conditions

    The current airworthiness regulations pertaining to pilot strength and controllability for conventional-control column-and-wheel designs do not adequately address the side-stick controllers proposed for the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplane. Accordingly, the FAA proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Gulfstream GVII-G500 airplanes, in lieu of §§ 25.143(d), 25.143(i)(2), 25.145(b), 25.173(c), 25.175(b), and 25.175(d):

    Pilot strength: In lieu of the control-force limits shown in § 25.143(d) for pitch and roll, and in lieu of specific pitch-force requirements of §§ 25.143(i)(2), 25.145(b), 25.173(c), 25.175(b), and 25.175(d), Gulfstream must show that the temporary and maximum prolonged-force levels for the side-stick controllers are suitable for all expected operating conditions and configurations, whether normal or non-normal.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 5, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20298 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1482; Notice No. 25-15-08-SC] Special Conditions: Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 Airplanes, Automatic Speed Protection for Design Dive Speed AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed special conditions.

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes special conditions for the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with a reduced margin between design cruising speed, VC/MC, and design diving speed, VD/MD, based on the incorporation of a high-speed protection system that limits nose-down pilot authority at speeds above VC/MC. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

    DATES:

    Send your comments on or before October 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-1482 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Walt Sippel, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2774; facsimile 425-227-1232.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

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

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

    Background

    On March 29, 2012, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation applied for a type certificate for their new Model GVII-G500 airplane. The Model GVII-G500 airplane will be a large-cabin business jet with seating for 19 passengers. It will incorporate a low, swept-wing design with winglets and a T-tail. The powerplant will consist of two aft-fuselage-mounted Pratt & Whitney turbofan engines. Avionics will include four primary display units and multiple touchscreen controllers. The flight-control system is a three-axis, fly-by-wire system incorporating active control/coupled side sticks.

    The Model GVII-G500 will have a wingspan of approximately 87 feet and a length of just over 91 feet. Maximum takeoff weight will be approximately 76,850 pounds and maximum takeoff thrust will be approximately 15,135 pounds. Maximum range will be approximately 5,000 nautical miles, and maximum operating altitude will be 51,000 feet.

    Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions ofTitle 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Gulfstream must show that the Model GVII-G500 airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25 as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-137.

    In addition, the certification basis includes other regulations, special conditions, and exemptions that are not relevant to these proposed special conditions.

    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for Model GVII-G500 airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model GVII-G500 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36; and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

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

    Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Model GVII-G500 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:

    Gulfstream proposes to reduce the margin between VC/MC and VD/MD, required by 14 CFR 25.335(b), based on the incorporation of a high-speed protection system in the airplane's flight-control laws. The high-speed protection system limits nose-down pilot authority at speeds above VC/MC, and prevents the airplane from performing the maneuver required under § 25.335(b)(1).

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

    Discussion

    Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.335(b)(1) is an analytical envelope condition which was originally adopted in Part 4b of the Civil Air Regulations to provide an acceptable speed margin between design cruise speed and design dive speed. Flutter clearance design speeds and airframe design loads are impacted by the design dive speed. While the initial condition for the upset specified in the rule is 1g level flight, protection is afforded for other inadvertent overspeed conditions as well. Section 25.335(b)(1) is intended as a conservative enveloping condition for potential overspeed conditions, including non-symmetric ones. To establish that potential overspeed conditions are enveloped, Gulfstream must demonstrate that any reduced speed margin based on the high-speed protection system in the Model GVII-G500 airplane will not be exceeded in inadvertent or gust-induced upsets resulting in initiation of the dive from non-symmetric attitudes; or that the airplane is protected by the flight-control laws from getting into non-symmetric upset conditions. Gulfstream must conduct a demonstration that includes a comprehensive set of conditions as described below.

    These special conditions are proposed in lieu of § 25.335(b)(1). Section 25.335(b)(2), which also addresses the design dive speed, is applied separately (Advisory Circular (AC) 25.335-1A provides an acceptable means of compliance to § 25.335(b)(2)).

    Special conditions are necessary to address the Model GVII-G500 airplane high-speed protection system.These proposed special conditions identify various symmetric and non-symmetric maneuvers that will ensure that an appropriate design dive speed, VD/MD, is established.

    Special Condition 2 of these proposed special conditions references AC 25-7C, section 8, paragraph 32, “Gust Upset,” included here for reference:

    In the following three upset tests, the values of displacement should be appropriate to the airplane type and should depend upon airplane stability and inertia characteristics. The lower and upper limits should be used for airplanes with low and high maneuverability, respectively.

    (i) With the airplane trimmed in wings-level flight, simulate a transient gust by rapidly rolling to the maximum bank angle appropriate for the airplane, but not less than 45 degrees nor more than 60 degrees. The rudder and longitudinal control should be held fixed during the time that the required bank is being attained. The rolling velocity should be arrested at this bank angle. Following this, the controls should be abandoned for a minimum of 3 seconds after VMO/MMO, or after 10 seconds, whichever occurs first.

    (ii) Perform a longitudinal upset from normal cruise. Airplane trim is determined at VMO/MMO using power and thrust required for level flight, but with not more than maximum continuous power and thrust. This is followed by a decrease in speed, after which an attitude of 6 to l2 degrees nose down, as appropriate for the airplane type, is attained with the power, thrust, and trim initially required for VMO/MMO in level flight. The airplane is permitted to accelerate until 3 seconds after VMO/MMO. The force limits of § 25.143(d) for short term application apply.

    (iii) Perform a two-axis upset, consisting of combined longitudinal and lateral upsets. Perform the longitudinal upset, as in paragraph (ii) above, and when the pitch attitude is set, but before reaching VMO/MMO, roll the airplane to between 15 and 25 degrees. The established attitude should be maintained until 3 seconds after VMO/MMO.

    Special Conditions 3 and 4 of these proposed special conditions indicate that failures of the high-speed protection system must be improbable and must be annunciated to the pilots. If these two criteria are not met, then the probability that the established dive speed will be exceeded, and the resulting risk to the airplane, are too great. On the other hand, if the high-speed protection system is known to be inoperative, then dispatch of the airplane may be acceptable as allowed by proposed Special Condition 5. Dispatch would only be acceptable if appropriate reduced operating speeds, VMO/MMO, as well as the overspeed warning for exceeding those speeds, are provided in both the airplane flight manual and on the flightdeck display, and are equivalent to that of the normal airplane with the high-speed protection system operative.

    We do not believe that application of the “Interaction of Systems and Structures” Special Conditions (reference GVI Issue Paper A-2), or EASA Certification Specification 25.302, are appropriate in this case, because design dive speed is, in and of itself, part of the design criteria. Stability and control, flight loads, and flutter evaluations all depend on the design dive speed. Therefore, a single design dive speed should be established that will not be exceeded, taking into account the performance of the high-speed protection system as well as its failure modes, failure indications, and accompanying flight-manual instructions.

    Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model GVII-G500 airplane. Should Gulfstream apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

    Conclusion

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:

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

    The Proposed Special Conditions Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplanes.

    1. In lieu of compliance with § 25.335(b)(1), if the flight-control system includes functions that act automatically to initiate recovery before the end of the 20-second period specified in § 25.335(b)(1), VD/MD must be determined from the greater of the speeds resulting from conditions (a) and (b) of these special cConditions. The speed increase occurring in these maneuvers may be calculated if reliable or conservative aerodynamic data are used.

    (a) From an initial condition of stabilized flight at VC/MC, the airplane is upset so as to take up a new flight path 7.5 degrees below the initial path. Control application, up to full authority, is made to try to maintain this new flight path. Twenty seconds after initiating the upset, manual recovery is made at a load factor of 1.5g (0.5 acceleration increment), or such greater load factor that is automatically applied by the system with the pilot's pitch control neutral. Power, as specified in § 25.175(b)(1)(iv), is assumed until recovery is initiated, at which time power reduction, and the use of pilot-controlled drag devices, may be used.

    (b) From a speed below VC/MC, with power to maintain stabilized level flight at this speed, the airplane is upset so as to accelerate through VC/MC at a flight path 15 degrees below the initial path (or at the steepest nose-down attitude that the system will permit with full control authority if less than 15 degrees). The pilot's controls may be in the neutral position after reaching VC/MC and before recovery is initiated. Recovery may be initiated 3 seconds after operation of the high-speed warning system by application of a load of 1.5g (0.5 acceleration increment), or such greater load factor that is automatically applied by the system with the pilot's pitch control neutral. Power may be reduced simultaneously. All other means of decelerating the airplane, the use of which is authorized up to the highest speed reached in the maneuver, may be used. The interval between successive pilot actions must not be less than 1 second.

    2. The applicant must also demonstrate that the speed margin, established as above, will not be exceeded in inadvertent or gust-induced upsets resulting in initiation of the dive from non-symmetric attitudes, unless the airplane is protected by the flight-control laws from getting into non-symmetric upset conditions. The upset maneuvers described in Advisory Circular 25-7C, “Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes,” section 8, paragraph 32, sub-paragraphs c(3)(a), (b), and (c), may be used to comply with this requirement.

    3. The probability of any failure of the high-speed protection system, which would result in an airspeed exceeding those determined by Special Conditions 1 and 2, must be less than 10−5 per flight hour.

    4. Failures of the system must be annunciated to the pilots. Flight manual instructions must be provided that reduce the maximum operating speeds, VMO/MMO. With the system failed, the operating speed must be reduced to a value that maintains a speed margin between VMO/MMO and VD/MD, and that is consistent with showing compliance with § 25.335(b) without the benefit of the high-speed protection system.

    5. The applicant may request that the Master Minimum Equipment List relief for the high-speed protection system be considered by the FAA Flight Operations Evaluation Board, provided that the flight manual instructions indicate reduced maximum operating speeds as described in Special Condition 4. In addition, the flightdeck display of the reduced operating speeds, as well as the overspeed warning for exceeding those speeds, must be equivalent to that of the normal airplane with the high-speed protection system operative. Also, the applicant must show that no additional hazards are introduced with the high-speed protection system inoperative.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 5, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20297 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2015-2271; Notice No. 25-15-06-SC] Special Conditions: Cessna Airplane Company Model 680A Airplane, Side-Facing Seats Equipped With Airbag Systems AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed special conditions.

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes special conditions for the Cessna Model 680A airplane. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design features side-facing seats equipped with airbag systems. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

    DATES:

    Send your comments on or before October 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-2271 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alan Sinclair, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Airplane Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2195; facsimile 425-227-1320.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

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

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

    Background

    On January 25, 2012, Cessna Airplane Company applied for an amendment to Type Certificate no. T00012WI to include the new Model 680A airplane. The Cessna 680A airplane, which is a derivative of the Cessna Model 680 airplane currently approved under Type Certificate no. T00012WI, is a new, high-performance, low-wing airplane derived from the Cessna Model 680 beginning with serial no. 680-0501. This airplane will have a maximum takeoff weight of 30,800 pounds with a wingspan of 72 feet, and will have two aft-mounted Pratt & Whitney PW306D1 FADEC-controlled turbofan engines.

    The pressurized cabin of the Model 680A airplane is designed to accommodate a crew of two, plus nine passengers in the baseline interior configuration, and will make use of a forward, right-hand-belted, two-place, side-facing seat. An optional seven-passenger interior configuration is also offered, which has a single-place side-facing seat on the forward right-hand side of the airplane. Both the baseline multiple-place and optional single-place side-facing seats are to be occupied for taxi, takeoff, and landing, and will incorporate an integrated, inflatable-airbag occupant-protection system.

    Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of § 21.101, Cessna Airplane Company must show that the Model 680A airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate no. T00012WI, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

    The regulations listed in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations listed in T00012WI are as follows:

    14 CFR part 25, effective February 1, 1965, including Amendments 25-1 through 25-98, with special conditions, exemptions, and later amended sections.

    In addition, the certification basis includes other regulations, special conditions, and exemptions that are not relevant to these proposed special conditions. Type Certificate no. T00012WI will be updated to include a complete description of the certification basis for this airplane model.

    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Cessna Model 680A airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Cessna Model 680A airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.101.

    Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Cessna Model 680A airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: Inflatable airbags on multiple-place and single-place side-facing seats of Cessna Model 680A airplanes to reduce the potential for both head and leg injury in the event of an accident.

    Discussion

    The FAA policy for side-facing seats at the time of application was provided in Policy Statement ANM-03-115-30. This policy statement describes the performance criteria and procedures to follow to certify single- and multiple-place side-facing seats.

    Also at the time of Cessna's application, the FAA indicated that further research would be conducted to define criteria to establish a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the current regulations for forward- and aft-facing seats. Research later conducted by the FAA, as documented in report DOT/FAA/AR-09/41, resulted in new policy issued to identify new certification criteria based on the research findings. Policy Statement PS-ANM-25-03 was released on June 8, 2012 (and was subsequently revised and reissued as Policy Statement PS-ANM-25-03-R1 on November 5, 2012). This new policy statement describes how to certify all side-facing seats to the new performance criteria through the issuance of special conditions.

    Along with the general seat-performance criteria, also included in the policy statement are the performance criteria for airbag systems used in shoulder-belt restraint systems. However, the policy statement does not specifically address airbag systems that are integrated into passenger-cabin monuments. Although the application date for the Model 680A airplane preceded Policy Statement PS-ANM-25-03, Cessna proposed using the guidance in Policy Statement PS-ANM-25-03-R1 to develop new special conditions applicable to the Model 680A airplane's side-facing seats.

    These proposed special conditions allow installation of an airbag system for a two-place side-facing seat and a single-place side-facing seat to protect the occupant from both head and leg-flail injury in Model 680A airplanes. Cessna's proposed airbag system is designed to limit occupant forward excursion in the event of an accident. This will reduce the potential for head injury by reducing the head-injury criteria (HIC) measurement, and will also provide a means for limiting the lower-leg flail of the occupant. The inflatable-airbag system behaves similarly to an automotive inflatable airbag, but in this design, the airbag system is integrated into passenger-cabin monuments; the airbags inflate away from the seated occupants. While inflatable airbags are now standard in the automotive industry, the use of inflatable-airbag systems in commercial aviation is novel and unusual.

    14 CFR 25.785 requires that occupants must be protected from head injury by either the elimination of any injurious object within the striking radius of the head, or by padding. Traditionally, this has required a seat setback of 35 inches from any bulkhead or other rigid interior feature or, where such spacing is not practical, the installation of specified types of padding. The relative effectiveness of these means of injury protection was not quantified in the original rule. Amendment 25-64 to § 25.562 established a standard that quantifies required head-injury protection.

    Section 25.562 specifies that each seat-type design, approved for crew or passenger occupancy during taxi, takeoff, and landing, must successfully complete dynamic tests, or be shown to be compliant by rational analysis based on dynamic tests of a similar type of seat. In particular, the regulations require that persons must not suffer serious head injury under the conditions specified in the tests, and that protection must be provided, or the seat must be designed such that the head impact does not exceed a HIC of 1000 units. While the test conditions described for HIC are detailed and specific, it is the intent of the requirement that an adequate level of head-injury protection must be provided for passengers the event of an airplane accident.

    Because §§ 25.562 and 25.785 and associated guidance do not adequately address seats with inflatable-airbag systems, the FAA recognizes that appropriate pass/fail criteria are required to fully address the safety concerns specific to occupants of these seats. Previously issued special conditions addressed airbag systems integral to the shoulder belt for some forward-facing seats. The proposed special conditions for the Model 680A inflatable-airbag systems are based on the shoulder-belt airbag systems.

    Although the special conditions are applicable to the inflatable-airbag system as installed, compliance with the special conditions is not an installation approval. Therefore, while the special conditions relate to each such system installed, the overall installation approval is a separate finding, and must consider the combined effects of all such systems installed.

    Part 25 states the performance criteria for head-injury protection in objective terms. However, none of these criteria are adequate to address the specific issues raised concerning seats with inflatable-airbag systems. In addition to the requirements of part 25, special conditions are needed to address requirements particular to seats equipped with an integrated, inflatable-airbag system.

    Part 25, appendix F, part I specifies the flammability requirements for interior materials and components. This rule does not reference inflatable-airbag systems because such devices did not exist at the time the flammability requirements were written. The existing requirements are based on material types as well as material applications, and have been specified in light of the state-of-the-art materials available to perform a given function. In the absence of such a specific reference, the default requirement, per the rule, would apply to the type of material used in constructing the inflatable restraint, which, in the case of the rule, would be a fabric.

    In writing special conditions, the FAA must also consider how the material is used within the cabin interior, and whether the default requirement is appropriate. Here, the specialized function of the inflatable-airbag system means that highly specialized materials are required. The standard normally applied to fabrics is a 12-second vertical ignition test. However, materials that meet this standard do not perform adequately as inflatable restraints; and materials used in the construction of inflatable-airbag systems do not perform well in this test.

    Because the safety benefit of the inflatable-airbag system is very significant, the FAA has determined that the flammability standard appropriate for these devices should not prohibit suitable inflatable-airbag system materials; disqualifying these materials would effectively not allow the use of inflatable-airbag systems. The FAA therefore is required to establish a balance between the safety benefit of the inflatable-airbag system and its flammability performance. At this time, the 2.5-inches-per-minute horizontal burn test provides that necessary balance. As the technology in materials progresses, the FAA may change this standard in subsequent special conditions to account for improved materials.

    From the standpoint of a passenger-safety system, the inflatable-airbag system is unique in that it is both an active and entirely autonomous device. While the automotive industry has good experience with inflatable airbags, the conditions of use and reliance on the inflatable-airbag system as the sole means of injury protection are quite different. In automobile installations, the airbag is a supplemental system and works in conjunction with an upper-torso restraint. In addition, the crash event is more definable and of typically shorter duration, which can simplify the activation logic. The airplane-operating environment is quite different from automobiles, and includes the potential for greater wear and tear, and unanticipated abuse conditions (due to galley loading, passenger baggage, etc.); airplanes also operate where exposure to high-intensity electromagnetic fields could affect the activation system.

    The inflatable-airbag system has two potential advantages over other means of head-impact protection. First, it can provide significantly greater protection than would be expected with energy-absorbing pads, and second, it can provide essentially equivalent protection for occupants of all stature. These are significant advantages from a safety standpoint because such devices will likely provide a level of safety that exceeds the minimum standards of the Federal aviation regulations. Conversely, inflatable-airbag systems are, in general, active systems and must be relied upon to activate properly when needed, as opposed to an energy-absorbing pad or upper torso restraint that is passive and always available. Therefore, the potential advantages must be balanced against this and other potential disadvantages in developing standards for this design feature.

    The FAA considers the installation of inflatable-airbag systems to have two primary safety concerns: First, that they perform properly under foreseeable operating conditions, and second, that they do not perform in a manner or at such times as would constitute a hazard to the airplane or occupants. This latter point has the potential to be the more rigorous of the requirements, owing to the active nature of the system.

    The inflatable-airbag system will rely on electronic sensors for signaling, and a stored gas canister for inflation. The sensors and canister could be susceptible to inadvertent activation, causing a potentially unsafe deployment. The consequences of inadvertent deployment, as well as a failure to deploy in a timely manner, must be considered in establishing the reliability of the system. Cessna must substantiate that an inadvertent deployment in-flight either would not cause injuries to occupants, or that the probability of such a deployment meets the requirements of § 25.1309(b). The effect of an inadvertent deployment on a passenger or crewmember, who could be positioned close to an airbag, should also be considered. The person could be either standing or sitting. A minimum reliability level must be established for this case, depending upon the consequences, even if the effect on the airplane is negligible.

    The potential for an inadvertent deployment could increase as a result of conditions in service. The installation must take into account wear and tear so that the likelihood of an inadvertent deployment is not increased to an unacceptable level. In this context, an appropriate inspection interval and self-test capability are considered necessary. In addition, outside influences, such as lightning and high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF), may also contribute to or cause inadvertent deployment. Existing regulations regarding lightning, § 25.1316, and HIRF, § 25.1317, are applicable to the Model 680A airplane.

    The applicant must verify that electromagnetic interference (EMI) present, under foreseeable operating conditions, will not affect the function of the inflatable-airbag system or cause inadvertent deployment. Finally, the inflatable-airbag system installation must be protected from the effects of fire, so that an additional hazard is not created by, for example, a rupture of the pyrotechnic squib.

    To be an effective safety system, the inflatable-airbag system must function properly and must not introduce any additional hazards to occupants or the airplane as a result of its functioning. The inflatable-airbag system differs from traditional occupant-protection systems in several ways, requiring special conditions to ensure adequate performance.

    Because the inflatable-airbag system is a single-use device, it potentially could deploy under crash conditions that are not sufficiently severe as to require injury protection from the inflatable-airbag system. Because an actual crash is frequently composed of a series of impacts before the airplane comes to rest, this could render the inflatable-airbag system useless if a larger impact follows the initial impact. This situation does not exist with energy absorbing pads or upper-torso restraints, which tend to provide continuous protection regardless of severity or number of impacts in a crash event. Therefore, the inflatable-airbag system installation should provide protection, when it is required, and not expend its protection when it is not required. And while several large impact events may occur during the course of a crash, there are no requirements for the inflatable-airbag system to provide protection for multiple impacts.

    Each occupant's restraint system provides protection for that occupant only. Likewise, the installation must address seats that are unoccupied. The applicant must show that the required protection is provided for each occupant regardless of the number of occupied seats, considering that unoccupied seats may have airbag systems that are active.

    The inflatable-airbag system should be effective for a wide range of occupants. The FAA has historically considered the range from the 5th percentile female to the 95th percentile male as the range of occupants that must be taken into account. In this case, the FAA is proposing consideration of a broader range of occupants, i.e., a two-year-old child to a 95th percentile male, plus pregnant females. This is due to the nature of the inflatable-airbag system installation and its close proximity to the occupant. In a similar vein, these persons could assume the brace position for those accidents where an impact is anticipated. Test data indicate that occupants in the brace position do not require supplemental protection, and so it would not be necessary to show that the inflatable-airbag system will enhance the brace position. However, the inflatable-airbag system must not introduce a hazard in the case of deploying into the seated, braced occupant.

    Another area of concern is the use of seats so equipped, by children, whether lap-held, in approved child-safety seats, or occupying the seat directly. Similarly, if the seat is occupied by a pregnant woman, the installation should address such use, either by demonstrating that it will function properly, or by adding appropriate limitation on persons allowed to occupy the seat.

    Given that the airbag system will be electrically powered, the possibility exists that the system could fail due to a separation in the fuselage. And because this system is intended as a means of crash/post-crash protection, failure to deploy due to fuselage separation is not acceptable. As with emergency lighting, the system should function properly if such a separation occurs at any point in the fuselage. As required by § 25.1353(a), operation of the existing airplane electrical equipment should not adversely impact the function of the inflatable-airbag system under all foreseeable conditions.

    The inflatable-airbag system is likely to have a large volume displacement, and, likewise, the inflated airbag could potentially impede egress of passengers. Because the airbag deflates to absorb energy, it is likely that an inflatable-airbag system would be deflated at the time that persons would be trying to leave their seats. Nonetheless, the FAA considers it appropriate to specify a time interval after which the inflatable-airbag system may not impede rapid egress. Ten seconds is indicated as a reasonable time because this corresponds to the maximum time allowed for an exit to be openable (reference: § 25.809).

    The FAA position is provided in Policy Statement PS-ANM-25-03-R1 “Technical Criteria for Approving Side Facing Seats.” This policy statement refers to airbag systems in the shoulder belts, while Cessna's design configuration has airbag systems integrated into the side-facing seats. The FAA genericized these proposed special conditions to be applicable to the Cessna design configuration.

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

    Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Cessna Model 680A airplane. Should Cessna apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

    Conclusion

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Airplane, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:

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

    The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Cessna Model 680A airplanes.

    In addition to the requirements of §§ 25.562 and 25.785, the following special conditions 1 and 2 are proposed as part of the type certification basis of the Model 680A airplane with side-facing seat installations. For seat places equipped with airbag systems, additional special conditions 3 through 16 are proposed as part of the type certification basis.

    1. Additional requirements applicable to tests or rational analysis conducted to show compliance with §§ 25.562 and 25.785 for side-facing seats:

    1.1. The longitudinal tests conducted in accordance with § 25.562(b)(2), to show compliance with the seat-strength requirements of § 25.562(c)(7) and (8) and these special conditions, must have an ES-2re anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) (49 CFR part 572, subpart U) or equivalent, or a Hybrid-II ATD (49 CFR part 572, subpart B, as specified in § 25.562) or equivalent, occupying each seat position, and including all items contactable by the occupant (e.g., armrest, interior wall, or furnishing) if those items are necessary to restrain the occupant. If included, the floor representation and contactable items must be located such that their relative position, with respect to the center of the nearest seat place, is the same at the start of the test as before floor misalignment is applied. For example, if floor misalignment rotates the centerline of the seat place nearest the contactable item 8 degrees clockwise about the airplane x-axis, then the item and floor representations also must be rotated by 8 degrees clockwise to maintain the same relative position to the seat place, as shown in Figure 1 of these special conditions. Each ATD's relative position to the seat, after application of floor misalignment, must be the same as before misalignment is applied. To ensure proper loading of the seat by the occupants, the ATD pelvis must remain supported by the seat pan, and the restraint system must remain on the pelvis and shoulder of the ATD until rebound begins. No injury-criteria evaluation is necessary for tests conducted only to assess seat-strength requirements.

    1.2. The longitudinal tests conducted in accordance with § 25.562(b)(2), to show compliance with the injury assessments required by § 25.562(c) and these special conditions, may be conducted separately from the tests to show structural integrity. In this case, structural-assessment tests must be conducted as specified in paragraph 1.1 of these special conditions, and the injury-assessment test must be conducted without yaw or floor misalignment. Injury assessments may be accomplished by testing with ES-2re ATD (49 CFR part 572, subpart U) or equivalent at all places. Alternatively, these assessments may be accomplished by multiple tests that use an ES-2re at the seat place being evaluated, and a Hybrid-II ATD (49 CFR part 572, subpart B, as specified in § 25.562) or equivalent used in all seat places forward of the one being assessed, to evaluate occupant interaction. In this case, seat places aft of the one being assessed may be unoccupied. If a seat installation includes adjacent items that are contactable by the occupant, the injury potential of that contact must be assessed. To make this assessment, tests may be conducted that include the actual item, located and attached in a representative fashion. Alternatively, the injury potential may be assessed by a combination of tests with items having the same geometry as the actual item, but having stiffness characteristics that would create the worst case for injury (injuries due to both contact with the item and lack of support from the item).

    1.3. If a seat is installed aft of structure (e.g., an interior wall or furnishing) that does not have a homogeneous surface contactable by the occupant, additional analysis and/or tests may be required to demonstrate that the injury criteria are met for the area upon which an occupant could contact. For example, different yaw angles could result in different injury considerations, and may require additional analysis or separate tests to evaluate.

    EP18AU15.014

    1.4. To accommodate a range of occupant heights (5th percentile female to 95th percentile male), the surface of items contactable by the occupant must be homogenous 7.3 inches (185 mm) above and 7.9 inches (200 mm) below the point (center of area) that is contacted by the 50th percentile male-sized ATD's head during the longitudinal tests, conducted in accordance with paragraphs 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 of these special conditions. Otherwise, additional HIC assessment tests may be necessary. Any surface (inflatable or otherwise) that provides support for the occupant of any seat place must provide that support in a consistent manner regardless of occupant stature. For example, if an inflatable shoulder belt is used to mitigate injury risk, then it must be demonstrated by inspection to bear against the range of occupants in a similar manner before and after inflation. Likewise, the means of limiting lower-leg flail must be demonstrated by inspection to provide protection for the range of occupants in a similar manner.

    1.5. For longitudinal tests conducted in accordance with 14 CFR 25.562(b)(2) and these special conditions, the ATDs must be positioned, clothed, and have lateral instrumentation configured as follows:

    1.5.1. ATD positioning: Lower the ATD vertically into the seat (see Figure 2 of these special conditions) while simultaneously:

    1.5.1.1. Aligning the midsagittal plane (a vertical plane through the midline of the body; dividing the body into right and left halves) with approximately the middle of the seat place.

    EP18AU15.015

    1.5.1.2. Applying a horizontal x-axis direction (in the ATD coordinate system) force of about 20 lb (89 N) to the torso, at approximately the intersection of the midsagittal plane and the bottom rib of the ES-2re or lower sternum of the Hybrid-II at the midsagittal plane, to compress the seat-back cushion.

    1.5.1.3. Keeping the upper legs nearly horizontal by supporting them just behind the knees.

    1.5.2. After all lifting devices have been removed from the ATD:

    1.5.2.1. Rock it slightly to settle it into the seat.

    1.5.2.2. Separate the knees by about 4 inches (100 mm).

    1.5.2.3. Set the ES-2re's head at approximately the midpoint of the available range of z-axis rotation (to align the head and torso midsagittal planes).

    1.5.2.4. Position the ES-2re's arms at the joint's mechanical detent that puts them at approximately a 40-degree angle with respect to the torso. Position the Hybrid-II ATD hands on top of its upper legs.

    1.5.2.5. Position the feet such that the centerlines of the lower legs are approximately parallel to a lateral vertical plane (in the airplane coordinate system).

    1.5.3. ATD clothing: Clothe each ATD in form-fitting, mid-calf-length (minimum) pants and shoes (size 11E), all clothing weighing about 2.5 lb (1.1 Kg) total. The color of the clothing should be in contrast to the color of the restraint system. The ES-2re jacket is sufficient for torso clothing, although a form-fitting shirt may be used in addition if desired.

    1.5.4. ES-2re ATD lateral instrumentation: The rib-module linear slides are directional, i.e., deflection occurs in either a positive or negative ATD y-axis direction. The modules must be installed such that the moving end of the rib module is toward the front of the airplane. The three abdominal-force sensors must be installed such that they are on the side of the ATD toward the front of the airplane.

    1.6. The combined horizontal/vertical test, required by § 25.562(b)(1) and these special conditions, must be conducted with a Hybrid II ATD (49 CFR part 572, subpart B, as specified in § 25.562), or equivalent, occupying each seat position.

    1.7. The design and installation of seatbelt buckles must prevent unbuckling due to applied inertial forces or impact of the hands/arms of the occupant during an emergency landing.

    1.8. Inflatable-airbag systems must be active during all dynamic tests conducted to show compliance with § 25.562.

    2. Additional performance measures applicable to tests and rational analysis conducted to show compliance with §§ 25.562 and 25.785 for side-facing seats:

    2.1. Body-to-body contact: Contact between the head, pelvis, torso, or shoulder area of one ATD with the adjacent-seated ATD's head, pelvis, torso, or shoulder area is not allowed. Contact during rebound is allowed.

    2.2. Thoracic: The deflection of any of the ES-2re ATD upper, middle, and lower ribs must not exceed 1.73 inches (44 mm). Data must be processed as defined in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 571.214.

    2.3. Abdominal: The sum of the measured ES-2re ATD front, middle, and rear abdominal forces must not exceed 562 lbs (2,500 N). Data must be processed as defined in FMVSS 571.214.

    2.4. Pelvic: The pubic symphysis force measured by the ES-2re ATD must not exceed 1,350 lbs (6,000 N). Data must be processed as defined in FMVSS 571.214.

    2.5. Leg: Axial rotation of the upper leg (femur) must be limited to 35 degrees in either direction from the nominal seated position.

    2.6. Neck: As measured by the ES-2re ATD and filtered at CFC 600 as defined in SAE J211:

    2.6.1. The upper-neck tension force at the occipital condyle (O.C.) location must be less than 405 lb (1,800 N).

    2.6.2. The upper-neck compression force at the O.C. location must be less than 405 lb (1,800 N).

    2.6.3. The upper-neck bending torque about the ATD x-axis at the O.C. location must be less than 1,018 in.-lb (115 N-m).

    2.6.4. The upper-neck resultant shear force at the O.C. location must be less than 186 lb (825 N).

    2.7. Occupant (ES-2re ATD) retention: The pelvic restraint must remain on the ES-2re ATD's pelvis during the impact and rebound phases of the test. The upper-torso restraint straps (if present) must remain on the ATD's shoulder during the impact.

    2.8. Occupant (ES-2re ATD) support:

    2.8.1. Pelvis excursion: The load-bearing portion of the bottom of the ATD pelvis must not translate beyond the edges of its seat's bottom seat-cushion supporting structure.

    2.8.2. Upper-torso support: The lateral flexion of the ATD torso must not exceed 40 degrees from the normal upright position during the impact.

    3. For seats with an airbag system, show that the airbag system will deploy and provide protection under crash conditions where it is necessary to prevent serious injury. The means of protection must take into consideration a range of stature from a 2-year-old child to 95th percentile male. The airbag system must provide a consistent approach to energy absorption throughout that range of occupants. When the seat systems include airbag systems, the systems must be included in each of the certification tests as they would be installed in the airplane. In addition, the following situations must be considered:

    3.1. The seat occupant is holding an infant.

    3.2. The seat occupant is a pregnant woman.

    4. The airbag systems must provide adequate protection for each occupant regardless of the number of occupants of the seat assembly, considering that unoccupied seats may have an active airbag system.

    5. The design must prevent the airbag systems from being either incorrectly buckled or incorrectly installed, such that the airbag systems would not properly deploy. Alternatively, it must be shown that such deployment is not hazardous to the occupant and will provide the required injury protection.

    6. It must be shown that the airbag system is not susceptible to inadvertent deployment as a result of wear and tear, or inertial loads resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers (including gusts and hard landings), and other operating and environment conditions (vibrations, moisture, etc.) likely to occur in service.

    7. Deployment of the airbag system must not introduce injury mechanisms to the seated occupant, nor result in injuries that could impede rapid egress. This assessment should include an occupant whose restraint is loosely fastened.

    8. It must be shown that inadvertent deployment of the airbag system, during the most critical part of the flight, will either meet the requirement of § 25.1309(b) or not cause a hazard to the airplane or its occupants.

    9. It must be shown that the airbag system will not impede rapid egress of occupants 10 seconds after airbag deployment.

    10. The airbag systems must be protected from lightning and high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF). The threats to the airplane specified in existing regulations regarding lighting, § 25.1316, and HIRF, § 25.1317 apply to these special conditions for the purpose of measuring lightning and HIRF protection.

    11. The airbag system must function properly after loss of normal airplane electrical power, and after a transverse separation of the fuselage at the most critical location. A separation at the location of the airbag systems does not have to be considered.

    12. It must be shown that the airbag system will not release hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cabin.

    13. The airbag system installations must be protected from the effects of fire such that no hazard to occupants will result.

    14. A means must be available for a crew member to verify the integrity of the airbag system's activation system prior to each flight, or it must be demonstrated to reliably operate between inspection intervals. The FAA considers that the loss of the airbag-system deployment function alone (i.e., independent of the conditional event that requires the airbag-system deployment) is a major-failure condition.

    15. The inflatable material may not have an average burn rate of greater than 2.5 inches/minute when tested using the horizontal flammability test defined in 14 CFR part 25, appendix F, part I, paragraph (b)(5).

    16. The airbag system, once deployed, must not adversely affect the emergency lighting system (e.g., block floor proximity lights to the extent that the lights no longer meet their intended function).

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 5, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20300 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of Workers' Compensation Programs 20 CFR Parts 702 and 703 RIN 1240-AA09 Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act: Transmission of Documents and Information AGENCY:

    Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) published a notice of proposed rulemaking and companion direct final rule in the Federal Register on March 12, 2015, broadening the acceptable methods by which claimants, employers, and insurers can communicate with OWCP and each other regarding claims arising under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act and its extensions. The comment period closed on May 11, 2015. OWCP did not receive significant adverse comment and therefore the direct final rule took effect on June 10, 2015. For these reasons, OWCP is withdrawing the notice of proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Effective August 18, 2015, the notice of proposed rulemaking published on March 12, 2015 (80 FR 12957), is withdrawn.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Antonio Rios, Director, Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, Suite C-4319, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 693-0038 (this is not a toll-free number). TTY/TDD callers may dial toll-free 1-877-889-5627 for further information.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On March 12, 2015, OWCP published a notice of proposed rulemaking revising 20 CFR parts 702 and 703 to broaden the acceptable methods by which claimants, employers, and insurers can communicate with OWCP and each other regarding claims arising under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act and its extensions. (80 FR 12957). On the same date, OWCP published a direct final rule containing identical revisions because it believed that the proposed revisions were non-controversial and unlikely to generate significant adverse comment. (80 FR 12917). OWCP indicated that if it did not receive any significant adverse comments on either rule by May 11, 2015, the direct final rule would take effect and there would be no further need to proceed with the notice of proposed rulemaking. (See 80 FR 12918, 12957-58).

    OWCP received two public comments that were not significant adverse comments. One expressed support for the proposed rule and the other did not substantively address the rule. Because OWCP did not receive any significant adverse comments within the specified comment period, it is withdrawing the notice of proposed rulemaking with this notice. For the same reason, OWCP is also confirming that the direct final rule took effect on June 10, 2015.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of August, 2015. Leonard J. Howie III, Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20422 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-CR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs 25 CFR Part 41 [156A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900 253G] [Docket ID: BIA-2011-0002] RIN 1076-AF08 Grants to Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities and Diné College AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of 1978, as amended (TCCUA), authorizes Federal assistance to institutions of higher education that are formally controlled or have been formally sanctioned or chartered by the governing body of an Indian tribe or tribes. Passed at the same time as the TCCUA, the Navajo Community College Assistance Act of 1978, as amended (NCCA) authorizes Federal assistance to the Navajo Nation in construction, maintenance, and operation of Diné College. This proposed rule would update the TCCUA's implementing regulations in light of amendments to the TCCUA in 1983, 1986, 1998 and 2008 and the NCCA's implementing regulations in light of amendments to the NCCA in 2008.

    DATES:

    Please submit written comments by October 19, 2015. See Section IV of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on tribal consultation sessions.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. The rule is listed under the agency name “Bureau of Indian Affairs.” The rule has been assigned Docket ID: BIA-2011-0002. If you would like to submit comments through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal, go to www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions. Email: [email protected] Include the number 1076-AF08 in the subject line of the message. Fax: (202) 208-3312. Include the number 1076-AF08 in the subject line of the message. Mail or hand delivery: Ms. Juanita Mendoza, Acting Chief of Staff, Bureau of Indian Education, 1849 C Street NW., MIB—Mail Stop 4657, Washington, DC 20240. Include the number 1076-AF08 in the subject line of the message.

    We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see DATES) will be included in the docket for this rulemaking and considered. Comments sent to an address other than those listed above will not be included in the docket for this rulemaking.

    See Section IV of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on tribal consultation sessions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Juanita Mendoza, Acting Chief of Staff, Bureau of Indian Education (202) 208-3559.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background II. Purpose of Today's Proposed Rule III. Summary of Today's Proposed Rule IV. Tribal Consultation Sessions V. Procedural Requirements A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866) B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Takings (E.O. 12630) F. Federalism (E.O. 13132) G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175) I. Paperwork Reduction Act J. National Environmental Policy Act K. Information Quality Act L. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211) M. Clarity of This Regulation N. Public Availability of Comments I. Background

    The TCCUA authorizes grants for operating and improving tribally controlled colleges and universities to insure [sic] continued and expanded educational opportunities for Indian students and to allow for the improvement and expansion of the physical resources of such institutions. See, 25 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. The TCCUA also authorizes grants for the encouragement of endowment funds for the operation and improvement of tribally controlled colleges and universities. The NCCA authorizes grants to the Navajo Nation to assist in the construction, maintenance, and operation of Diné College. See 25 U.S.C. 640a et seq.

    In 1968, the Navajo Nation created the first tribally controlled college, now called Diné College—and other tribal colleges quickly followed in California, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Today, there are 37 tribally controlled colleges in 17 states. The tribally controlled institutions were chartered by one or more tribes and are locally managed.

    Tribally controlled colleges generally serve geographically isolated populations. In a relatively brief period of time, they have become essential to educational opportunity for American Indian students. Tribally controlled colleges are unique institutions that combine personal attention with cultural relevance, in such a way as to encourage American Indians—especially those living on reservations—to overcome barriers to higher education.

    II. Purpose of the Proposed Rule

    The regulations at 25 CFR part 41 were originally published in 1979. See, 44 FR 67042 dated November 21, 1979. Since the Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-471, Title I) was enacted on October 17, 1978, over 30 years of amendments to the Act have been made. These include Public Law 98-192 (December 1, 1983), Public Law 99-428 (September 30, 1996), Public Law 105-244 (October 7, 1998), and Public Law 110-315 (August 14, 2008). Similarly, the Navajo Community College Assistance Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-471, Title II) was amended by Public Law 110-315 (August 14, 2008). The revisions to the TCCUA and the NCCA have rendered areas of the current rule obsolete. Therefore, the proposed rule updates the regulations and:

    • Makes changes required by Executive Order 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write in plain language;

    • Updates institutional names (e.g., changing “Director, Office of Indian Education Programs” to “Director of the Bureau of Indian Education”);

    • Adds statutory authorities and makes accompanying statutory updates; and

    • Combines the purpose, scope, and definitions into a new subpart A.

    III. Summary of the Proposed Rule

    Significant changes include emphasizing that the calculation of an Indian Student Count (ISC) shall only include students making satisfactory progress, as defined by the tribally controlled college, towards a degree or certificate; no credit hours earned by a high school student that will be used towards the student's high school degree or its equivalent shall be included in the ISC; and grantees may exclude high school students for the purpose of calculating the total number of full-time equivalent students. Changes clarify often misunderstood requirements for an ISC and when high school students cannot be counted towards an ISC. The proposed rule updates definitions per amended legislation; reorganizes and clarifies institutional grant eligibility, grant application procedures, the Department of the Interior (DOI) grant reporting requirements, and essential information for determining Indian student eligibility. Presently, information is embedded in extended definitions and is difficult to find, the proposed changes increase accessibility and correct out of date language and requirements.

    The proposed rule makes several terminology changes throughout to reflect statutory language. These include replacing “tribally controlled community colleges” with “tribally controlled colleges and universities,” replacing “Navajo Community College” with “Diné College,” and replacing “feasibility” with “eligibility” in appropriate places. The following table lists additional changes.

    Current section Current title Proposed
  • section
  • Proposed title Change
    41.1 Purpose 41.1 When does this subpart apply? Removes purpose and replaces a reference to provisions in subpart A applying to subparts B and C. 41.2 Scope 41.9 What is the purpose of this subpart? • Removes “Scope.”
  • • Clarifies that subpart A applies to financial assistance to tribal colleges and universities specified by Title I of the Act and technical assistance to all institutions funded under the Act.
  • • Clarifies that subpart A does not apply to financial assistance to Diné College or tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions. 41.3 Definitions 41.3 What definitions are needed? • Adds definition for “Academic facilities.” • Removes definition for “The Act.” • Adds “BIE” to mean the Bureau of Indian Education. • Adds “Department” to mean the Department of the Interior. • Adds “Director.” • Adds “Eligible continuing education units (CEUs).” • Adds definition for “Full-time.” • Adds “Indian Student Count (ISC) or Indian Full-Time Equivalent (FTE)” and moves information on the formula to 41.5. • Changes “Indian” to “Indian student” definition. • Amends definition of “Institution of higher education” to clarify that unaccredited institutions must have been granted pre-accreditation or candidate status and references 20 U.S.C. 100(a). • Amends “national Indian organization” to delete requirement for finding to be published in the Federal Register. • Adds definition for “NCCA.” • Amends “operating expenses of education programs” to add more examples of operating expenses. • Adds “Satisfactory progress” and defines it as what the tribal college or university defines it to be. • Adds definition for “Secretary.” • Adds definition for “TCCUA” to mean the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of 1978.
  • • Removed “unused portion of received funds.”
  • 41.4 Grants 41.11 Who is eligible for financial assistance under this subpart Defines tribal college or university eligibility for receiving financial assistance. 41.5 Eligible Activities 41.5 How is Indian Student Count/Full Time Equivalent calculated? • Refines formula for clarity and changes the week to conduct an ISC to the 3rd week of an academic term as opposed to the 6th week of an academic term. • Adds credit hours toward computation of ISC by students who have not obtained a high school degree benefiting from education or training offered but exempts credit hours from ISC computation if they are applied towards the high school degree. • Adds toward a degree or certificate. 41.6 HHS Participation Removes Section Deletes section because the process is no longer relevant and moves the essence of the section to Sec. 41.17. 41.7 Feasibility Studies 41.19 How can a tribal college or university establish eligibility to receive a grant? 41.7 Feasibility Studies 41.21 How can a tribe appeal the results of an eligibility study? • Extends the amount of time the tribe may submit an appeal to the Assistant Secretary from 30 days to 45 days.
  • • Changes Assistant Secretary's written ruling on an appeal from 30 days to 45 days.
  • 41.7 Feasibility Studies (f) 41.23 Can a tribal college or university request a second eligibility study? Clarifies that a college or university can request another eligibility study in 12 months from the date of the negative determination. 41.8(a)-(b) Grants 41.25 & 41.5 How does a tribal college or university apply for a grant? • Simplifies the formula for calculating the amount of a grant. • Changes submission deadline from January 31 to June 1st. • Outlines required information and provides an explanation for the required information. • Adds grantees may exclude high school students from the total number of FTE students. • Adds information that a grantee does not need to submit new required information if there has been no change in the information from the previous year. 41.8(c) Grants 41.27 When can the tribal college or university expect a decision on its application Changes the approval and disapproval time frame from 30 days to 45 days. 41.8(d) 41.29 How will a grant be awarded? Adds that the base amount is $8,000 (from $4,000) and that it will be adjusted annually for inflation. 41.8(e) 41.31 & 41.33 When will the tribal college or university receive funding? • Adds that payments equal to 95 percent (from 50 percent) of funds available will be distributed by either July 1 (from October 1) or within 14 days of appropriations. • Adds BIE will not commingle funds appropriated for grants. 41.8 (g) 41.33 What if there isn't enough money to pay the full amount No change in information. 41.8(f) 41.35 What will happen if the tribal college or university doesn't receive its appropriate share? No change in information. 41.8(h) 41.37 Is the tribal college or university eligible for other grants? Adds clarification. 41.9 Reports 41.39 What reports does the tribal college or university need to provide? No change in information. 41.10 Technical Assistance 41.41 Can the tribal college or university receive technical assistance Adds that BIE will provide technical assistance. 41.11 General Provisions 41.43 How must the tribal college or university administer its grant? No change in information. 41.12 Annual Budget Removes Section Deletes section because section is no longer applicable; appropriations are now sent directly to Bureau of Indian Education. 41.13 For what activities can financial assistance to tribal colleges and universities be used? Provides examples of permissible activities. 41.13 Criminal penalties 41.7 What happens if false information is submitted? No change in information. 41.15 What activities are prohibited? Lists prohibited activities. 41.17 What is the role of the Secretary of Education? Clarifies role. 41.20 Policy Removes Section Deletes section because subpart A now sets out the policy. 41.21 Scope 41.51 What is the scope of this subpart? Simplifies applicability statement. 41.22 Definitions Removes Section Deletes section because definitions are now consolidated in subpart A. 41.23 Eligible activities 41.63 How can financial assistance be used? No change in information. 41.24(a)-(b) Grants 41.53 How does Diné College request financial assistance? Simplifies requirements. 41.24(c) 41.55 How are grant funds processed? Clarifies funds will not be commingled with those designated for other titles of the TCCUA. 41.24(d) 41.57 When will the application be reviewed? Changes time in which grant award will be made from 30 days to 45 days. 41.24(e) 41.29 How will a grant be awarded? Refers to subpart B. 41.24(f) 41.59 When will grant funds be paid? Simplifies when funds will be received. 41.24(g) Refers to section § 41.35 41.24(h) 41.61 Is Diné College eligible for other grants? No change in information. 41.25 Reports 41.65 What reports must be provided? Changes reporting deadline from September 1st to December 1st. 41.26 Technical assistance 41.67 Can Diné College receive technical assistance? Refers back to procedures in subpart B. 41.27(a)-(b) General provisions 41.69 How shall Diné College administer its grant? No change in information. 41.27(c) Appeal 41.70 Changes time in which an appeal, a hearing and the Assistant Secretary's ruling will be made from 30 days to 45 days. 41.28 Criminal penalties 41.7 What happens if false information is submitted? Deletes section because it's included in subpart A. 41.45 How does the tribal college or university apply for programming grants? Adds tribes and tribal entities may submit a request for a grant to conduct planning activities for the establishment of a tribally controlled college or university. 41.47 What is the purpose of this subpart? Specifies Diné College and the Diné College Act.
    IV. Tribal Consultation Sessions

    BIE will be hosting two tribal consultation sessions by webex and teleconference on this proposed rule:

    • Monday, September 21, 2015, 3 p.m. EDT. To register for this session, go to this link: https://dcma100.webex.com/dcma100/k2/j.php?MTID=t23a171402a9f5518f3b863039378065a. Once the host approves your registration, you will receive a confirmation email with instructions for joining the session. To join by teleconference, please call: 1-866-704-9181, Passcode: 10469100.

    • Wednesday, September 23, 2015, 3 p.m. EDT. To register for this session go to this link: https://dcma100.webex.com/dcma100/k2/j.php?MTID=tdf898f2b05e77536907260a8a358a52c. Once you are approved by the host, you will receive a confirmation email with instructions for joining the session. To join by teleconference, please call: 1-866-704-9181, Passcode: 10469100.

    V. Procedural Requirements A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)

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

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

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). It does not change current funding requirements or regulate small entities.

    C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Because this proposed rule is limited to the tribally controlled colleges or universities within tribal communities, it will not result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. Nor will this rule have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

    E. Takings (E.O. 12630)

    Under the criteria in Executive Order 12630, this rule does not affect individual property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment nor does it involve a compensable “taking”. A takings implication assessment is not required.

    F. Federalism (E.O.) 13132

    Under the criteria in Executive Order 13132, this rule has no 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. This rule implements provisions within the Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-471 enacted on October 17, 1978) that authorizes grants for operating and improving tribally controlled colleges or universities to ensure continued and expanded educational opportunities for Indian students by providing financial assistance to be used for the operating expenses of education programs.

    Because the rule does not affect the Federal government's relationship to the States or the balance of power and responsibilities among various levels of government, it will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

    G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule has been reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and written to minimize litigation; and is written in clear language and contains clear legal standards.

    H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175)

    This rule will directly affect all those tribes planning to apply for or now receiving grants under the TCCUA and the NCCA. In accordance with Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000), the Bureau of Indian Education conducted consultation on the following dates in 2014: October 16, Anchorage, Alaska; October 20, Webinar; October 22, Gallup, New Mexico; October 27, Billings, Montana; and October 29, Bloomington, Minnesota. To develop the proposed rule, the Department collaborated with the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), which represents tribally controlled colleges and universities that will be affected by the rule. Presidents of tribally-controlled colleges and universities provided the initial comments and draft of the rule. AIHEC formally presented the draft for the proposed rule to the BIE via drafting sessions. The current proposed rule is the result of those drafting sessions, BIE input and recommendations, and comments provided at the consultations.

    I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule contains the following information collections, which are currently approved by OMB: Tribal Colleges and University Grant Application Form, which is approved under OMB Control Number 1076-0018; and Tribal Colleges and University Annual Report Form, which is approved under OMB Control Number 1076-0105. Both of these information collections expire on November 30, 2015. The proposed rule does not add any new information collection burden beyond that covered by these existing OMB approvals; therefore, an information collection submission to OMB is not required for this rulemaking.

    J. National Environmental Policy Act

    This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    K. Information Quality Act

    In developing this rule we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554).

    L. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)

    This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

    M. Clarity of This Regulation

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

    (a) Be logically organized;

    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;

    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the “COMMENTS” section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

    N. Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    List of Subjects

    Colleges or universities, Grants programs—education, Grant programs—Indians, Indians—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons given in the preamble, the Department of the Interior proposes to amend title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations by revising part 41 to read as follows:

    PART 41—GRANTS TO TRIBALLY CONTROLLED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, DINÉ COLLEGE, AND TRIBALLY CONTROLLED POSTSECONDARY CAREER AND TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS Subpart A—Purpose, Scope, Definitions Sec. 41.1 When does this subpart apply? 41.3 What definitions are needed? 41.5 How is ISC/FTE calculated? 41.7 What happens if false information is submitted? Subpart B—Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities 41.9 What is the purpose of this subpart? 41.11 Who is eligible for financial assistance under this subpart? 41.13 For what activities can financial assistance to tribal colleges and universities be used? 41.15 What activities are prohibited? 41.17 What is the role of the Secretary of Education? 41.19 How can a tribal college or university establish eligibility to receive a grant? 41.21 How can a tribe appeal the results of an eligibility study? 41.23 Can a tribal college or university request a second eligibility study? 41.25 How does the tribal college or university apply for a grant? 41.27 When can the tribal college or university expect a decision on its application? 41.29 How will a grant be awarded? 41.31 When will the tribal college or university receive funding? 41.33 What if there isn't enough money to pay the full grant amount? 41.35 What will happen if the tribal college or university doesn't receive its appropriate share? 41.37 Is the tribal college or university eligible for other grants? 41.39 What reports does the tribal college or university need to provide? 41.41 Can the tribal college or university receive technical assistance? 41.43 How must the tribal college or university administer its grant? 41.45 How does the tribal college or university apply for programming grants? 41.47 Are tribal colleges or universities eligible for endowments? Subpart C—Diné College 41.49 What is the purpose of this subpart? 41.51 What is the scope of this subpart? 41.53 How does Diné College request financial assistance? 41.55 How are grant funds processed? 41.57 When will the application be reviewed? 41.59 When will the funds be paid? 41.61 Is Diné College eligible to receive other grants? 41.63 How can financial assistance be used? 41.65 What reports must be provided? 41.67 Can Diné College receive technical assistance? 41.69 How shall Diné College administer its grant? 41.71 Can Diné College appeal an adverse decision under a grant agreement by the Director? Authority:

    Pub. L. 95-471, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1325; amended Pub. L. 98-192, Dec. 1, 1983, 97 Stat. 1335; Pub. L. 99-428, Sept. 30, 1986, 100 Stat. 982; Pub. L. 105-244, Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1619; Pub. L. 110-315, Aug. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 3460; 25 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.; Pub. L. 98-192, Dec. 15, 1971, 85 Stat. 646; and Pub. L. 110-315, Aug. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 3468; 25 U.S.C. 640a et seq.

    Subpart A—Applicability and Definitions
    § 41.1 When does this subpart apply?

    The provisions in this subpart A apply to subparts B and C.

    § 41.3 What definitions are needed?

    As used in this part:

    Academic facilities mean structures suitable for use as:

    (1) Classrooms, laboratories, libraries, and related facilities necessary or appropriate for instruction of students;

    (2) Research facilities;

    (3) Facilities for administration of educational or research programs;

    (4) Dormitories or student services buildings; or

    (5) Maintenance, storage, support, or utility facilities essential to the operation of the foregoing facilities.

    Academic term means a semester, trimester, or other such period (not less than six weeks in duration) into which a tribal college or university normally subdivides its academic year, but does not include a summer term.

    Academic year means a twelve month period established by a tribal college or university as the annual period for the operation of the tribal college's or university's education programs.

    Assistant Secretary means the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior.

    BIE means the Bureau of Indian Education.

    College or university means an institution of higher education that is formally controlled, formally sanctioned, or chartered by the governing body of an Indian tribe or tribes. To qualify under this definition, the college or university must:

    (1) Be the only institution recognized by the Department for the tribe, excluding Diné College; and

    (2) If under the control, sanction, or charter of more than one tribe, be the only institution recognized by the Department for at least one tribe that currently has no other formally controlled, formally sanctioned, or chartered college or university.

    Department means the Department of the Interior.

    Director means the Director of the Bureau of Indian Education.

    Eligible continuing education units (CEUs) means non-degree credits that meet the criteria established by the International Association of Continuing Education and Training.

    Full-time means registered for 12 or more credit hours for an academic term.

    Indian Student Count (ISC) or Indian Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) means a number equal to the total number of Indian students enrolled at a tribal college or university, determined according to the formula in Section § 41.5.

    Indian student means a student who is a member of an Indian tribe, or (2) a biological child of a living or deceased member of an Indian tribe. Documentation is required to verify eligibility as a biological child of a living or deceased member of an Indian tribe, and may include birth certificate and marriage license; tribal records of student's parent; Indian Health Service eligibility cards; other documentation necessary to authenticate a student as eligible to be counted as an Indian student under this definition.

    Indian tribe means an Indian tribe, band, nation, pueblo, rancheria, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native Village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, to be listed in the Federal Register pursuant to 25 CFR 83.5(a) as recognized by and eligible to receive services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    Institution of higher education means an institution as defined by section 1001(a) of Title 20 of the United States Code, except that clause (2) of such section shall not be applicable and the reference to Secretary in clause (5)(A) of such section shall be deemed to refer to the Secretary of the Interior.

    National Indian organization means an organization which the Secretary finds to be nationally based, represents a substantial Indian constituency and has expertise in the fields of tribally controlled colleges and universities, and Indian higher education.

    NCCA means the Navajo Community College Act of 1978, as amended (25 U.S.C. 640a et seq.).

    Operating expenses of education programs means the obligations and expenditures of a tribal college or university for postsecondary except for acquisition or construction of academic facilities. Permissible expenditures may include:

    (1) Administration;

    (2) Instruction;

    (3) Maintenance and repair of facilities;

    (4) Acquisition and upgrade of equipment, technological equipment, and other physical resources.

    Part-time means registered for less than 12 credit hours for an academic term.

    Satisfactory progress means satisfactory progress toward a degree or certificate as defined by the tribal college or university.

    Secretary, unless otherwise designated, means the Secretary of the Interior, or his/her duly authorized representative.

    TCCUA means the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of 1978, as amended (25 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

    § 41.5 How is ISC/FTE calculated?

    (a) ISC is calculated on the basis of eligible registrations of Indian students as in effect at the conclusion of the third week of each academic term.

    (b) To calculate ISC for an academic term, begin by adding all credit hours of full-time students and all credit hours of part-time students who are registered at the conclusion of the third week of the academic term.

    (c) Credit hours earned by students who have not obtained a high school degree or its equivalent may be added if you have established criteria for the admission of such students on the basis of their ability to benefit from the education or training offered. You will be presumed to have established such criteria if your admission procedures include counseling or testing that measures students' aptitude to successfully complete the courses in which they enroll.

    (d) No credit hours earned by a student attending high school and applied towards the student's high school degree or its equivalent may be counted toward computation of ISC; and no credit hours earned by a student not making satisfactory progress toward a degree or certificate may count toward the ISC.

    (e) If ISC is being calculated for a fall term, add to the calculation in paragraph (b) of this section any credits earned in classes offered during the preceding summer term.

    (f) Add to the calculation in paragraph (d) of this section those credits being earned in an eligible continuing education program at the conclusion of the third week of the academic term. Determine the number of those credits as follows:

    (1) For institutions on a semester system: one credit for every 15 contact hours and

    (2) For institutions on a quarter system: one credit for every 10 contact hours of participation in an organized continuing education experience under responsible sponsorship, capable direction, and qualified instruction, as described in the criteria established by the International Association for Continuing Education and Training. Limit the number of calculated eligible continuing education credits to 10 percent of your ISC.

    (g) Divide by 12 the calculation in paragraph (e) of this section.

    The formula for the full calculation is expressed mathematically as:

    ISC = FTCR + PTCR + SCR + CECR/12

    (h) In the formula in paragraph (f) of this section, the abbreviations used have the following meanings:

    (1) FTCR = the number of credit hours carried by full-time Indian students (students carrying 12 or more credit hours at the end of the third week of each academic term); and

    (2) PTCR = the number of credit hours carried by part-time Indian students (students carrying fewer than 12 credit hours at the end of the third week of each academic term).

    (3) SCR = in a fall term, the number of credit hours earned during the preceding summer term.

    (4) CECR = the number of credit hours being earned in an eligible continuing education program at the conclusion of the third week of the academic term, in accordance with subsection (e) of this section.

    (i) Include a count of all registered students, including distance education students, at the conclusion of the third week of the academic term.

    § 41.7 What happens if false information is submitted?

    Persons submitting or causing to be submitted any false information in connection with any application, report, or other document under this part may be subject to criminal prosecution under provisions such as sections 371 or 1001 of Title 18, U.S. Code.

    Subpart B—Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities
    § 41.9 What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart prescribes procedures for providing financial and technical assistance under the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of 1978, as amended (25 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) for the operation and improvement of tribal colleges and universities and advancement of educational opportunities for Indian Students. This subpart does not apply to Diné College.

    § 41.11 Who is eligible for financial assistance under this subpart?

    A tribal college or university is eligible for financial assistance under this subpart only if:

    (a) It is governed by a board of directors or board of trustees, a majority of whom are Indians;

    (b) It demonstrates adherence to stated goals, a philosophy, or a plan of operation directed to meet the needs of Indians;

    (c) It has a student body that is more than 50 percent Indian (unless it has been in operation for less than one year);

    (d) Either is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association determined by the Secretary of Education to be a reliable authority with regard to the quality of training offered, or, according to such agency or association, are making reasonable progress toward accreditation;

    (e) It has received a positive determination after completion of an eligibility study; and

    (f) It complies with the requirements of § 41.19.

    (g) Priority to schools and the number of grants: priority in grants shall be given to institutions which were in operation on the date of enactment of this Act [enacted Oct. 17, 1978] and which have a history of service to Indian people.

    § 41.13 For what activities can financial assistance to tribal colleges and universities be used?

    Financial assistance under this subpart may be used to defray, at the determination of the tribal college or university, expenditures for academic, educational, and administrative purposes and for the operation and maintenance of the college or university.

    § 41.15 What activities are prohibited?

    Tribal colleges and universities shall not use financial assistance awarded under this subpart in connection with religious worship or sectarian instruction. However, nothing in this subpart shall be construed as barring instruction or practice in comparative religions or cultures or in languages of American Indian tribes.

    § 41.17 What is the role of the Secretary of Education?

    (a) The Secretary is authorized to enter into an agreement with the Secretary of Education to obtain assistance to:

    (1) Develop plans, procedures, and criteria for eligibility studies required under this subpart; and

    (2) Conduct such studies.

    (b) BIE must consult with the Secretary of Education to determine the reasonable number of students required to support a tribal college or university.

    § 41.19 How can a tribal college or university establish eligibility to receive a grant?

    (a) Before a tribal college or university can apply for an initial grant under this part, the governing body of one or more Indian tribes must request on its behalf a determination of eligibility.

    (b) Within 30 days of receiving a resolution or other duly authorized request from the governing body of one or more Indian tribes, BIE shall initiate an eligibility study to determine whether there is justification for a tribal college or university.

    (c) The eligibility study will analyze the following factors:

    (1) Financial feasibility based upon reasonable potential enrollment; considering:

    (i) Tribal, linguistics, or cultural differences;

    (ii) Isolation;

    (iii) Presence of alternate educational sources;

    (iv) Proposed curriculum;

    (2) Levels of tribal matriculation in and graduation from postsecondary educational institutions; and

    (3) The benefits of continued and expanded educational opportunities for Indian students.

    (d) Based upon results of the study, the Director will send the tribe a written determination of eligibility.

    (e) The Secretary and the BIE, to the extent practicable, will consult with national Indian organizations and with tribal governments chartering the institutions being considered.

    § 41.21 How can a tribe appeal the results of an eligibility study?

    If a tribe receives a negative determination under § 41.19(e), it may submit an appeal to the Assistant Secretary within 45 days.

    (a) Following the timely filing of a tribe's notice of appeal, the tribal college or university and the tribe have a right to a formal review of the eligibility study, including a hearing upon reasonable notice within 60 days. At the hearing, the tribal college or university and the appealing tribe may present additional evidence or arguments to justify eligibility.

    (b) Within 45 days of the hearing, the Assistant Secretary will issue a written ruling confirming, modifying, or reversing the original determination. The ruling will be final and BIE will mail or deliver it within one week of its issuance.

    (c) If the Assistant Secretary does not reverse the original negative determination, the ruling will specify the grounds for our decision and state the manner in which the determination relates to each of the factors in § 41.11.

    § 41.23 Can a tribal college or university request a second eligibility study?

    If a tribe is not successful in its appeal under § 41.21, it can request another eligibility study 12 months or more after the date of the negative determination.

    § 41.25 How does a tribal college or university apply for a grant?

    (a) If the college or university receives a positive determination of the eligibility study under § 41.19, it is entitled to apply for financial assistance under this subpart.

    (b) To be considered for assistance, a tribal college or university must submit an application by or before June 1st of the year preceding the academic year for which the tribal college or university is requesting assistance. The application must contain the following:

    Required information Required details (1) Identifying information (i) Name and address of the tribal college or university. (ii) Names of the governing board members, and the number of its members who are Indian. (iii) Name and address of the tribe or tribes that control or have sanctioned or chartered the tribal college or university. (2) Eligibility verification The date on which an eligibility determination was received (3) Curriculum materials (i) A statement of goals, philosophy, or plan of operation demonstrating how the education program is designed to meet the needs of Indians. (ii) A curriculum, which may be in the form of a college catalog or similar publication, or information located on the tribal college or university Web site. (4) Financial information (i) A proposed budget showing total expected education program operating expenses and expected revenues from all sources for the academic year to which the information applies. (ii) A description of record-keeping procedures used to track fund expenditures and to audit and monitor funded programs. (5) Enrollment information (i) If the tribal college or university has been in operation for more than one year, a statement of the total number of ISC (FTE Indian students) and the total number of all FTE students. Grantees may exclude high school students for the purpose of calculating the total number of FTE students. (ii) If the tribal college or university has not yet begun operations, or has been in operation for less than one year, a statement of expected enrollment, including the total number of FTE students and the ISC (FTE Indian students) and may also require verification of the number of registered students after operations have started. (6) Assurances and requests (i) Assurance that the tribal college or university will not deny admission to any Indian student because that student is, or is not, a member of a specific tribe. (ii) Assurance that the tribal college or university will comply with the requirements in § 41.39 of this subpart. (iii) A request and justification for a specific waiver of any requirement of 25 CFR part 276 which a tribal college or university believe to be inappropriate. (7) Certification Certification by the chief executive that the information on the application is complete and correct.

    (c) Material submitted in a tribal college's or university's initial successful grant application shall be retained by the BIE. A tribal college or university submitting a subsequent application for a grant, shall either confirm the information previously submitted remains accurate or submit updated information, as necessary.

    § 41.27 When can the tribal college or university expect a decision on its application?

    Within 45 days of receiving an application, the Director will notify the tribal college or university in writing whether or not the application has been approved.

    (a) If the Director approves the application, written notice will explain when the BIE will send the tribal college or university a grant agreement under § 41.19.

    (b) If the Director disapproves the application, written notice will include:

    (1) The reasons for disapproval; and

    (2) A statement advising the tribal college or university of the right to amend or supplement the tribal college's or university's application within 45 days.

    (c) The tribal college or university may appeal a disapproval or a failure to act within 45 days of receipt following the procedures in § 41.21.

    § 41.29 How will a grant be awarded?

    If the Director approves the tribal college's or university's application, the BIE will send the tribal college or university a grant agreement that incorporates the tribal college's or university's application and the provisions required by § 41.25. The tribal college or university grant will be for the fiscal year starting after the approval date of the application.

    (a) The BIE will generally calculate the amount of the tribal college or university grant using the following procedure:

    (1) Begin with a base amount of $8,000 (adjusted annually for inflation);

    (2) Multiply the base amount by the number of FTE Indian students in attendance during each academic term; and

    (3) Divide the resulting sum by the number of academic terms in the academic year.

    (b) All grants under this section are subject to availability of appropriations.

    (c) If there are insufficient funds to pay the amount calculated under paragraph (a) of this section, BIE will reduce the grant amount awarded to each eligible tribal college or university on a pro rata basis.

    § 41.31 When will the tribal college or university receive funding?

    (a) BIE will authorize payments equal to 95 percent of funds available for allotment by either July 1 or within 14 days after appropriations become available, with the remainder of the payment made no later than September 30.

    (b) BIE will not commingle funds appropriated for grants under this subpart with other funds expended by the BIE.

    § 41.33 What if there isn't enough money to pay the full grant amount?

    This section applies if BIE has to reduce payments under § 41.29(c).

    (a) If additional funds have not been appropriated to pay the full amount of grants under this part on or before June 1st of the year, the BIE will notify all grant recipients in writing. The tribal college or university must submit a written report to the BIE on or before July 1st explaining how much of the grant money remains unspent.

    (b) After receiving the tribal college's or university's report under paragraph (a) of this section, BIE will:

    (1) Reallocate the unspent funds using the formula in § 41.29 in proportion to the amount of assistance to which each grant recipient is entitled but has not received;

    (2) Ensure that no tribal college or university will receive more than the total annual cost of its education programs;

    (3) Collect unspent funds as necessary for redistribution to other grantees under this section; and

    (4) Make reallocation payments on or before August 1st of the academic year.

    § 41.35 What will happen if the tribal college or university doesn't receive its appropriate share?

    (a) If the BIE determines the tribal college or university has received financial assistance to which the tribal college or university was not entitled, BIE will:

    (1) Promptly notify the tribal college or university; and

    (2) Reduce the amount of the tribal college's or university's payments under this subpart to compensate for any overpayments or otherwise attempt to recover the overpayments.

    (b) If a tribal college or university has received less financial assistance than the amount to which the tribal college or university was entitled, the tribal college or university should promptly notify the BIE. If the BIE confirms the miscalculation, BIE will adjust the amount of the tribal college's or university's payments for the same or subsequent academic years to compensate for the underpayments. This adjustment will come from the Department's general funds and not from future appropriated funds.

    § 41.37 Is the tribal college or university eligible for other grants?

    Yes. Eligibility for grants under this subpart does not bar a tribal college or university from receiving financial assistance under any other federal program.

    § 41.39 What reports does the tribal college or university need to provide?

    (a) The tribal college or university must provide the BIE, on or before December 1 of each year a report that includes:

    (1) An accounting of the amounts and purposes for which the tribal college or university spent assistance received under this part during the preceding academic year;

    (2) An accounting of the annual cost of the tribal college's or university's education programs from all sources for the academic year; and

    (3) A final performance report based upon the criteria the tribal college's or university's goals, philosophy, or plan of operation.

    (b) The tribal college or university must report to the BIE their FTE Indian student enrollment for each academic term of the academic year within three (3) weeks of the date the tribal college or university makes the FTE calculation.

    § 41.41 Can the tribal college or university receive technical assistance?

    (a) If a tribal college or university sends the BIE a written request for technical assistance, BIE will respond within 30 days.

    (b) The BIE will provide technical assistance either directly or through annual contract to a national Indian organization that the tribal college or university designates.

    (c) Technical assistance may include consulting services for developing programs, plans, and eligibility studies and accounting, and other services or technical advice.

    § 41.43 How must the tribal college or university administer its grant?

    In administering any grant provided under this subpart, a tribal college or university must:

    (a) Provide services or assistance under this subpart in a fair and uniform manner;

    (b) Not deny admission to any Indian student because they either are, or are not, a member of a specific Indian tribe; and

    (c) Comply with part 276 of this title, unless the BIE expressly waives specific inappropriate provisions of part 276 in response to a tribal college or university request and justification for a waiver.

    § 41.45 How does the tribal college or university apply for programming grants?

    (a) Tribes and Tribal entities may submit a written request to the BIE for a grant to conduct planning activities for the purpose of developing proposals for the establishment of tribally controlled colleges and universities, or to determine the need and potential for the establishment of such colleges and universities. BIE will provide written notice to the tribal college or university of its determination on the grant request within 30 days.

    (b) Subject to the availability of appropriations, BIE may provide such grants to up to five tribes and tribal entities in the amount of $15,000 each.

    § 41.47 Are tribal colleges or universities eligible for endowments?

    Yes. Tribal colleges and universities are eligible for endowments upon a signed agreement between the tribal college and university and the Secretary as described in 25 U.S.C. 1832. Endowments must be invested in a trust fund and the tribal college or university may only use the interest deposited for the purpose of defraying expenses associated with the operation of the tribal college or university (25 U.S.C. 1833).

    Subpart C—Diné College
    § 41.49 What is the purpose of this subpart?

    The purpose of this subpart is to assist the Navajo Nation in providing education to the members of the tribe and other qualified applicants through a community college, established by that tribe, known as Diné College. To that end, the regulations in this subpart prescribe procedures for providing financial and technical assistance for Diné College under the Diné College Act, as amended (25 U.S.C. 640a-c).

    § 41.51 What is the scope of this subpart?

    The regulations in this subpart are applicable to the provision of financial assistance to Diné College pursuant to the Diné College Act of December 15, 1971 (Pub. L. 92-189, 85 Stat. 646, 25 U.S.C. 640a-c) as amended by the Diné College Assistance Act of 1978, title II of the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-471, 92 Stat. 1325, 1329, 25 U.S.C. 640c).

    § 41.53 How does Diné College request financial assistance?

    To request tribal college or university financial assistance, Diné College must submit an application. The application must be certified by the tribal college or university chief executive officer and include:

    (a) A statement of Indian student enrollment and total FTE enrollment for the preceding academic year;

    (b) A curriculum description, which may be in the form of a college catalog or like publication or information located on the tribal college or university Web site; and

    (c) A proposed budget showing total expected operating expenses of educational programs and expected revenue from all sources for the grant year.

    § 41.55 How are grant funds processed?

    (a) BIE will identify the budget request for Diné College separately in its annual budget justification.

    (b) BIE will not commingle funds appropriated for grants under this subpart with appropriations that are historically expended by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for programs and projects normally provided on the Navajo Reservation for Navajo beneficiaries.

    § 41.57 When will the application be reviewed?

    Within 45 days of receiving the application the BIE will send a grant agreement for signature by the Diné College president or his or her designee in an amount determined under § 41.29(a). The grant agreement shall incorporate the grant application and include the provisions required by § 41.25

    § 41.59 When will grant funds be paid?

    (a) Initial grant funds will be paid in an advance installment of not less than 40 percent of the funds available for allotment by October 1st.

    (b) The remainder of the grant funds will be paid by July 1st after the BIE adjusts the amount to reflect any overpayments or underpayments made in the first disbursement.

    § 41.61 Is Diné College eligible to receive other grants?

    Yes. Eligibility for grants under this subpart does not bar Diné College from receiving financial assistance under any other Federal program.

    § 41.63 How can financial assistance be used?

    (a) The tribal college or university must use financial assistance under this subpart only for operation and maintenance, including educations programs, annual capital expenditures, major capital improvements, mandatory payments, supplemental student services, and improvement and expansion, as described in 25 U.S.C. 640c-1(b)(1);

    (b) Must not use financial assistance under this subpart for religious worship or sectarian instruction. However, this subpart does not prohibit instruction about religions, cultures or Indian tribal languages.

    § 41.65 What reports must be provided?

    (a) Diné College must submit on or before December 1st of each year a report that includes:

    (1) An accounting of the amounts and purposes for which Diné College spent the financial assistance during the preceding academic year;

    (2) The annual cost of Diné College education programs from all sources for the academic year; and

    (3) A final report of Diné College's performance based upon the criteria in its stated goals, philosophy, or plan of operation.

    (b) Diné College must report its FTE Indian student enrollment for each academic term within six weeks of the date it makes the FTE calculation.

    § 41.67 Can Diné College receive technical assistance?

    Technical assistance will be provided to Diné College as noted in § 41.41.

    § 41.69 How shall Diné College administer its grant?

    In administering any grant provided under this subpart, Diné College must:

    (a) Provide all services or assistance under this subpart in a fair and uniform manner;

    (b) Not deny admission to any Indian student because the student is, or is not, a member of a specific Indian tribe;

    (c) Comply with part 276 of this title, unless the BIE expressly waives specific inappropriate provisions of part 276 in response to Diné College's request and its justification for a waiver.

    § 41.71 Can Diné College appeal an adverse decision under a grant agreement by the Director?

    Diné College has the right to appeal to the Assistant Secretary by filing a written notice of appeal within 45 days of the adverse decision. Within 45 days after receiving notice of appeal, the Assistant Secretary shall conduct a formal hearing at which time the Diné College may present evidence and argument to support its appeal. Within 45 days of the hearing, the Assistant Secretary shall issue a written ruling on the appeal confirming, modifying or reversing the decision of the Director. If the ruling does not reverse the adverse decision, the Assistant Secretary shall state in detail the basis of his/her ruling. The ruling of the Assistant Secretary on an appeal shall be final for the Department.

    Dated: August 7, 2015. Kevin K. Washburn, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20242 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Parts 1902, 1903, 1904, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956 [Docket No. OSHA-2014-0009] RIN 1218-AC76 Streamlining of Provisions on State Plans for Occupational Safety and Health AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document primarily proposes to amend OSHA regulations to remove the detailed descriptions of State plan coverage, purely historical data, and other unnecessarily codified information. In addition, this document proposes to move most of the general provisions of subpart A of part 1952 into part 1902, where the general regulations on State plan criteria are found. It also proposes to amend several other OSHA regulations to delete references to part 1952, which would no longer apply. The purpose of these proposed revisions is to eliminate the unnecessary codification of material in the Code of Federal Regulations and save the time and funds currently expended in publicizing State plan revisions. The proposed streamlining of OSHA State plan regulations would not change the areas of coverage or any other substantive components of any State plan. It also does not affect the rights and responsibilities of the State plans, or any employers or employees, except to eliminate the burden on State plan designees to keep paper copies of approved State plans and plan supplements in an office, and to submit multiple copies of proposed State plan documents to OSHA. This document also contains a request for comments for an Information Collection Request (ICR) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), which covers all collection of information requirements in OSHA State plan regulations.

    DATES:

    Comments and additional materials (including comments on the information-collection (paperwork) determination described under the section titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this document) must be submitted (post-marked, sent or received) by September 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number OSHA-2014-0009, or regulatory information number (RIN) 1218-AC76 by any of the following methods:

    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on-line for making electronic submissions; or

    Fax: If your submission, including attachments, does not exceed 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648; or

    U.S. mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger or courier service: You must submit your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2014-0009, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2350 (OSHA's TTY number is (877) 889-5627). Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger and courier service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., EST.

    Instructions for submitting comments: All submissions must include the Docket Number (Docket No. OSHA-2014-0009) or the RIN number (RIN 1218-AC76) for this rulemaking. Because of security-related procedures, submission by regular mail may result in significant delay. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security procedures for making submissions by hand delivery, express delivery and messenger or courier service.

    All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, caution should be taken in submitting personal information, such as Social Security numbers and birth dates.

    Docket: To read or download submissions in response to this Federal Register document, go to docket number OSHA-2014-0009, at http://www.regulations.gov. All submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index: However, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through that Web page. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office.

    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available at http://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases and other relevant information, is available at OSHA's Web page at http://www.osha.gov. A copy of the documents referenced in this document may be obtained from: Office of State Programs, Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3700, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, (202) 693-2244, fax (202) 693-1671.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For press inquiries: Francis Meilinger, OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1999; email: [email protected]

    For general and technical information: Douglas J. Kalinowski, Director, OSHA Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs, Room N-3700, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2200; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act), 29 U.S.C. 667, provides that States that desire to assume responsibility for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health standards may do so by submitting, and obtaining federal approval of, a State plan. States may obtain approval for plans that cover private-sector employers and State and local government employers (comprehensive plans) or for plans that only cover State and local government employers.

    From time to time changes are made to these State plans, particularly with respect to the issues which they cover. Procedures for approval of and changes to comprehensive State plans are set forth in the regulations at 29 CFR part 1902 and 29 CFR part 1953. A description of each comprehensive State plan has previously been set forth in 29 CFR part 1952, subparts C-FF. These descriptions have contained the following sections: Description of the plan, Developmental schedule, Completion of developmental steps and certifications, Staffing benchmarks, Final approval determination (if applicable), Level of Federal enforcement, Location where the State plan may be physically inspected, and Changes to approved plan.

    Procedures for approval of a State plan covering State and local government employees only are set forth in the regulations at 29 CFR part 1956, subparts A-C. Pursuant to 29 CFR 1956.21, procedures for changes to these State plans are also governed by 29 CFR part 1953. A description of each State plan for State and local government employees only has previously been set forth in 29 CFR part 1956, subparts E-I. These subparts have contained the following sections: Description of the plan as certified (or as initially approved), Developmental schedule, Completed developmental steps and certification (if applicable), and Location of basic State plan documentation.

    The area of coverage of each State plan has previously been codified at 29 CFR part 1952 under each State's subpart within the sections entitled “Final approval determination” and “Level of Federal enforcement,” and in 29 CFR part 1956 within the section on the description of the plan. Therefore, any change to a State plan's coverage or other part of the State plan description contained in 29 CFR part 1952 or 29 CFR part 1956 has thus far necessitated an amendment to the language of the CFR, which has required the expenditure of additional time and resources, such as those needed for printing. Furthermore, reprinting parts 1952 and 1956 in the annual CFR publication has necessitated the expenditure of additional time and resources. The individual descriptions of the State plans consisted of 103 pages in the July 1, 2013 revision of title 29, part 1927 to end, of the CFR. For these reasons, OSHA proposes to streamline parts 1952 and 1956 to delete the detailed descriptions of State plan coverage, purely historical data, and other unnecessarily codified information, thus saving time and funds currently expended in publishing changes to these parts of the CFR.

    There is no legal statutory requirement that individual State plans be described in the CFR. The CFR is a codification of the documents of each agency of the Government having general applicability and legal effect, issued or promulgated by the agency in the Federal Register. 44 U.S.C. 1510(a) and (b). The description of a State plan is not a document of general applicability; it only applies to a particular State. Nevertheless, in this document, OSHA sets forth brief descriptions of each State plan that will be retained in the CFR in part 1952 in order to make this information readily available to those conducting legal research and relying on the CFR. Brief descriptions of comprehensive plans are included in subpart A of part 1952 and brief descriptions of State plans covering State and local government employees only are included in subpart B of part 1952. Any significant changes that would make these descriptions outdated, such as a withdrawal or grant of final approval, will continue to be codified in the CFR.

    The proposed partial deletions of the State plan descriptions from the CFR will not decrease transparency. Each section of part 1952 would continue to note each State plan, the date of its initial approval, and, where applicable, the date of final approval, the existence of an operational status agreement, and the approval of staffing requirements (“benchmarks”). Each section would have a general statement of coverage indicating whether the plan covers all private-sector and State and local government employers, with some exceptions, or State and local government employers only. Each section would also note that current information about these coverage exceptions and additional details about the State plan could be obtained from the Web page on the OSHA public Web site describing the particular State plan (a link would be referenced). The OSHA Web page for each State plan would also be updated to include the latest information on coverage and other important changes. Furthermore, the other information about the State plan that is currently in the CFR would still be available in the Federal Register, and could be searched electronically at https://www.federalregister.gov and would also be available in printed form. The Federal Register could also be searched electronically on commercially available legal databases. When changes are made to State plan coverage, all of the information on coverage would be reprinted in the Federal Register along with the change, so that readers would not have to search through many Federal Register notices to obtain a comprehensive description of coverage.

    In addition to changing the individual descriptions of all State plans within part 1952, OSHA proposes to make several other housekeeping changes. First, OSHA proposes to move the provisions of subpart A of part 1952 that pertain to the required criteria for State plans, to part 1902. (The following provisions would be moved to part 1902: 29 CFR 1952.4, Injury and illness recording and reporting requirements; 29 CFR 1952.6, Partial approval of State plans; 29 CFR 1952.8, Variations, tolerances, and exemptions affecting the national defense; 29 CFR1952.9, Variances affecting multi-state employers; 29 CFR 1952.10, Requirements for approval of State posters; and 29 CFR 1952.11, State and local government employee programs.) As a result, the complete criteria for State plans would be located within part 1902.

    OSHA proposes to delete 29 CFR 1952.1 (Purpose and scope) and 29 CFR 1952.2 (Definitions) because the changes described above and the restructuring of part 1952 would make these provisions unnecessary. OSHA proposes to delete 29 CFR 1952.3 (Developmental plans) because that material is covered by 29 CFR 1902.2(b). The text of 29 CFR 1952.5 (Availability of State plans) requires complete copies of each State plan, including supplements thereto, to be kept at OSHA's National Office, the office of the nearest OSHA Regional Administrator, and the office of the State plan agency listed in part 1952. OSHA proposes to delete 29 CFR 1952.5 because with the widespread use of electronic document storage and the Internet, it is no longer necessary to physically store such information in order to make it available to the public. Information about State plans can now be found on each State's Web site, as well as on OSHA's Web site. For the same reasons, OSHA proposes to delete the language in 29 CFR 1953.3(c) (Plan supplement availability) which discusses making State plan documents available for public inspection and photocopying in designated offices. OSHA proposes to delete the text of 29 CFR 1952.7(a), which deals with product standards, because the explanation of section 18(c)(2) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 667(c)(2), on product standards is already covered by 29 CFR 1902.3(c)(2). However, OSHA proposes to move § 1952.7(b) to the end of § 1902.3(c)(2) because that material was not previously included. In addition, OSHA proposes to delete references to part 1952 from several other parts of the regulations, such as parts 1903, 1904, 1953, 1954 and 1955, because these references would no longer be accurate due to the proposed changes. Where appropriate, OSHA proposes to insert references to the newly numbered part 1902.

    Finally, OSHA proposes to make some further minor changes to part 1902. The text of 29 CFR 1902.3(j), which briefly describes State plans covering State and local government employees, would be deleted because a more detailed description of State plan coverage of State and local government employees, formerly set forth in 29 CFR 1952.11, would be incorporated into 29 CFR part 1902 as § 1902.4(d). This change would necessitate the re-designation of paragraphs in § 1902.3. Also, OSHA proposes to change 29 CFR 1902.10(a) to reduce the number of copies a State agency must submit in order to obtain approval of a State plan. With the advent of computer technology, the submission of extra paper copies is not necessary. OSHA also proposes to delete outdated references to an address in 29 CFR 1902.11(c) and (d).

    Administrative Procedure Act and Direct Final Rulemaking

    The notice and comment rulemaking procedures of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) do not apply “to interpretive rules, general statements of policy or, rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” or when the agency for good cause finds that “notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), (B). The proposed revisions set forth in this document would not implement any substantive change in the development, operation or monitoring of State plans. Nor would these revisions change the coverage or other enforcement responsibilities of the State plans or federal OSHA. The compliance obligations of employers and the rights of employees remain unaffected. Therefore, OSHA for good cause finds that notice and comment is unnecessary. In addition, the proposed elimination of the requirement to make paper copies of State plan documents available in certain federal and State offices and the reduction of the number of copies of a proposed State plan which a State agency must submit would be purely procedural changes. Future alterations to State plan coverage would only require a simple, easily searchable notice to be published in the Federal Register and an update to OSHA's State plan Web page.

    Although neither the Act nor the APA requires notice and comment rulemaking here, OSHA, as a matter of policy, is providing interested persons 30 days to submit comments. OSHA believes a 30-day timeframe for submitting comments is appropriate because the proposal is primarily a set of non-substantive technical changes.

    OSHA is publishing a companion direct final rule along with this proposed rule in the “Final Rules” section of this Federal Register. An agency uses direct final rulemaking when it anticipates that a rule will not be controversial. OSHA does not consider this proposed rule to be such because it primarily consists of changes in the organization of State plan information housed within the CFR, and the resultant re-numbering and updates to cross-references throughout the CFR.

    In direct final rulemaking, an agency publishes a direct final rule in the Federal Register with a statement that the rule will become effective unless the agency receives significant adverse comment within a specified period. The agency may publish an identical proposed rule at the same time. If the agency receives no significant adverse comment in response to the direct final rule, the agency typically confirms the effective date of a direct final rule through a separate Federal Register document. If the agency receives a significant adverse comment, the agency withdraws the direct final rule and treats such comment as a response to the proposed rule. For purposes of this proposed rule and the companion direct final rule, a significant adverse comment is one that explains why the rule would be inappropriate.

    The comment period for the direct final rule runs concurrently with that of this proposed rule. OSHA will treat comments received on the companion direct final rule as comments regarding the proposed rule. OSHA also will consider significant adverse comment submitted to this proposed rule as comment to the companion direct final rule. If OSHA receives no significant adverse comment to either this proposal or the companion direct final rule, OSHA will publish a Federal Register document confirming the effective date of the direct final rule and withdrawing this companion proposed rule. Such confirmation may include minor stylistic or technical changes to the document. If OSHA receives a significant adverse comment on either the direct final rule or this proposed rule, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the companion direct final rule and proceed with this proposed rule. In the event that OSHA withdraws the direct final rule because of significant adverse comment, OSHA will consider all timely comments received in response to the direct final rule when it continues with the proposed rule. After carefully considering all comments to the direct final rule and the proposal, OSHA will decide whether to publish a new final rule.

    OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This proposed rule revises “collection of information” (paperwork) requirements that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA-95”), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and OMB's regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. The Paperwork Reduction Act defines a “collection of information” as “the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public of facts or opinions by or for an agency regardless of form or format” (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). OMB approved the collection of information requirements currently contained in the regulations associated with OSHA-approved State Plans (29 CFR parts 1902, 1952, 1953, 1954, and 1956) under OMB Control Number 1218-0247.

    Through emergency processing procedures, OSHA submitted a request that OMB revise the collection of information requirements contained in these regulations within 45 days of publication. The proposed rule would not impose new collection of information requirements for purposes of PRA-95; therefore, the Agency does not believe that this rule will impact burden hours or costs. The proposed rule would move the current collection of information requirement provisions of subpart A of part 1952, pertaining to required criteria for State plans, to part 1902. The proposed rule would delete the text of current 29 CFR 1952.5 (Availability of State plans) requiring complete copies of each State plan, including supplements thereto, to be kept at OSHA's National Office, the nearest OSHA Regional Office, and the office of the State plan agency. The rule would also delete the language in current 29 CFR 1953.3(c) (Plan supplement availability) which discusses making State plan documents available for public inspection and photocopying in designated offices. The rule would also reduce from ten to one the number of copies of the State Plan which a State agency must submit under 29 CFR 1902.10(a) in order to obtain approval of the State plan. Finally, the proposed rule would revise regulations containing current collection of information requirements at 29 CFR parts 1902, 1952, 1953, 1954, and 1956 to delete or update cross-references, remove duplicative provisions, and re-designate paragraphs.

    OSHA has submitted an ICR addressing the collection of information requirements identified in this rule to OMB for review (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). OSHA solicits comments on the proposed extension and revision of the collection of information requirements and the estimated burden hours associated with the regulations associated with OSHA-approved State Plans, including comments on the following:

    Whether the proposed collection of information requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

    The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and cost) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    Enhancing the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

    Minimizing the burden on employers who must comply, for example, by using automated or other technological techniques for collecting and transmitting information.

    Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv), OSHA provides the following summary of the Occupational Safety and Health State Plans Information Collection Request (ICR):

    1. Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    2. Title: Occupational Safety and Health State Plans

    3. OMB Control Number: 1218-0247.

    4. Description of Collection of Information Requirements: The proposed collection of information requirements, contained in the regulations associated with this rule are set forth below. The citations reflect the changes in this notice of proposed rulemaking and the accompanying direct final rule.

    Part Collection of Information Requirements 29 CFR 1902 1902.2(a), 1902.2(b), 1902.2(c)(2), 1902.2(c)(3), 1902.3(a), 1902.3(b)(1)-(b)(3), 1902.3(c)(1), 1902.3(d)(1), 1902.3(d)(2), 1902.3(e), 1902.3(f), 1902.3(g), 1902.3(h), 1902.3(i), 1902.3(j), 1902.3(k), 1902.4(a), 1902.4(a)(1), 1902.4(a)(2), 1902.4(b)(1), 1902.4(b)(2), 1902.4(b)(2)(i)-(b)(2)(vii), 1902.4(c)(1), 1902.4(c)(2), 1902.4(c)(2)(i)-(c)(2)(xiii), 1902.4(d)(1), 1902.4(d)(2), 1902.4(d)(2)(i)-(d)(2)(iii)(k), 1902.4(e), 1902.7(a), 1902.7(d), 1902.9(a)(1), 1902.9(a)(5), 1902.9(a)(5)(i)-(a)(5)(xii), 1902.10, 1902.10(a), 1902.10(b), 1902.31, 1902.32(e), 1902.33, 1902.38(b), 1902.39(a), 1902.39(b), 1902.44(a), 1902.46(d), 1902.46(d)(1). 29 CFR 1952. 29 CFR 1953 1953.1(a), 1953.1(b), 1953.1(c), 1953.2(c)-1953.2(j), 1953.3(a)-(e), 1953.4(a)(1)-1953.4(a)(5), 1953.4(b)(1)-1953.4(b)(7), 1953.4(c)(1)-1953.4(c)(5), 1953.4(d)(1), 1953.4(d)(2), 1953.5(a)(1)-1953.5(a)(3), 1953.5(b)(1)-(b)(3), 1953.6(a), 1953.6(e). 29 CFR 1954 1954.2(a), 1954.2(b), 1954.2(b)(1)-1954.2(b)(3), 1954.2(c), 1954.2(d), 1954.2(e), 1954.2(e)(1)-(e)(4), 1954.3(f)(1), 1954.3(f)(1)(i)-1954.3(f)(1)(v), 1954.10(a), 1954.10(b), 1954.10(c), 1954.11, 1954.20(a), 1954.20(b), 1954.20(c)(1), 1954.20(c)(2), 1954.20(c)(2)(i)-1954.20(c)(2)(iv), 1954.21(a), 1954.21(b), 1954.21(c), 1954.21(d), 1954.22(a)(1), 1954.22(a)(2). 29 CFR 1955. 29 CFR 1956 1956.2(b)(1), 1956.2(b)(1)(i)-(ii), 1956.2(b)(2), 1956.2(b)(3), 1956.2(c)(1), 1956.2(c)(2), 1956.10(a), 1956.10(b)(1), 1956.10(b)(2), 1956.10(b)(3), 1956.10(c), 1956.10(d)(1), 1956.10(d)(2), 1956.10(e), 1956.10(f), 1956.10(g), 1956.10(h), 1956.10(i), 1956.10(j), 1956.11(a), 1956.11(a)(1), 1956.11(a)(2), 1956.11(d), 1956.20, 1956.21, 1956.22, 1956.23.

    5. Affected Public: Designated state government agencies that are seeking or have submitted and obtained approval for State Plans for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health standards.

    6. Number of Respondents: 28.

    7. Frequency: On occasion; quarterly; annually.

    8. Average Time per Response: Varies from 30 minutes (.5 hour) to respond to an information inquiry to 80 hours to document state annual performance goals.

    9. Estimated Total Burden Hours: The Agency does not believe that this rule will impact burden hours or costs. However, based on updated data and estimates, the Agency is requesting an adjustment increase of 173 burden hours, from 11,196 to 11,369 burden hours. This burden hour increase is the result of the anticipated increase in the submission of state plan changes associated with one state (Maine) actively implementing a new State Plan. The burden hour increase was partially offset by the decrease in the estimated number of state-initiated state plan changes.

    10. Estimated Costs (Operation and Maintenance): There are no capital costs for this collection of information.

    Submitting comments. In addition to having an opportunity to file comments with the Department, the PRA provides that an interested party may file comments on the collection of information requirements contained in the rule directly with the Office of Management and Budget, at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected] Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments to the Department. See ADDRESSES section of this preamble. The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives within forty-five (45) days of publication of this NPRM in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB control number 1218-0247. Comments submitted in response to this document are public records; therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers and date of birth.

    Docket and inquiries. To access the docket to read or download comments and other materials related to this paperwork determination, including the complete Information Collection Request (ICR) (containing the Supporting Statement with attachments describing the paperwork determinations in detail), use the procedures described under the section of this document titled ADDRESSES. You also may obtain an electronic copy of the complete ICR by visiting the Web page, http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, select “Department of Labor” under “Currently Under Review” to view all of DOL's ICRs, including the ICR related to this rulemaking. To make inquiries, or to request other information, contact Mr. Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, Room N-3609, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.

    OSHA notes that a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB control number, and the public is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Also, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Unfunded Mandates, and Executive Orders on the Review of Regulations

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (as amended), OSHA examined the provisions of the proposal to determine whether it would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since no employer of any size would have any new compliance obligations, the Agency certifies that the proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. OSHA also reviewed this proposal in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Because this proposal would impose no new compliance obligations, it would require no additional expenditures by either private employers or State, local, or tribal governments.

    Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) emphasizes consultation between Federal agencies and the States on policies not required by statute which have federalism implications, i.e., policies, such as regulations, which 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, or which impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. This proposal has no federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State or local governments.

    OSHA has reviewed this proposal in accordance with Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) and determined that the proposal would not have substantial direct effects 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.

    List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1902, 1903, 1904, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956

    Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement, Occupational safety and health.

    Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, authorized the preparation of this proposal. OSHA is issuing this proposal under the authority specified by Sections 8(c)(1), 8(c)(2), and 8(g)(2) and 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 657(c)(1), (c)(2), and (g)(2) and 667) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (76 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 28, 2015. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. Amendments to Regulations

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble of this proposal, OSHA proposes to amend 29 CFR parts 1902, 1903, 1904, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956 as follows:

    PART 1902—STATE PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF STATE STANDARDS 1. The authority citation for part 1902 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 8 and 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 657, 667); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).

    Subpart B—Criteria for State Plans 2. Amend § 1902.3 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (c)(2); b. Remove paragraph (j); c. Redesignate paragraphs (k) and (l) as (j) and (k), respectively.

    The revision reads as follows:

    § 1902.3 Specific criteria.

    (c) * * *

    (2) The State plan shall not include standards for products distributed or used in interstate commerce which are different from Federal standards for such products unless such standards are required by compelling local conditions and do not unduly burden interstate commerce. This provision, reflecting section 18(c)(2) of the Act, is interpreted as not being applicable to customized products or parts not normally available on the open market, or to the optional parts or additions to products which are ordinarily available with such optional parts or additions. In situations where section 18(c)(2) is considered applicable, and provision is made for the adoption of product standards, the requirements of section 18(c)(2), as they relate to undue burden on interstate commerce, shall be treated as a condition subsequent in light of the facts and circumstances which may be involved.

    3. Amend § 1902.4 by revising paragraph (d) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 1902.4 Indices of effectiveness.

    (d) State and local government employee programs. (1) Each approved State plan must contain satisfactory assurances that the State will, to the extent permitted by its law, establish and maintain an effective and comprehensive occupational safety and health program applicable to all employees of public agencies of the State and its political subdivisions which program is as effective as the standards contained in an approved plan.

    (2) This criterion for approved State plans is interpreted to require the following elements with regard to coverage, standards, and enforcement:

    (i) Coverage. The program must cover all public employees over which the State has legislative authority under its constitution. The language in section 18(c)(6) which only requires such coverage to the extent permitted by the State's law specifically recognizes the situation where local governments exclusively control their own employees, such as under certain home rule charters.

    (ii) Standards. The program must be as effective as the standards contained in the approved plan applicable to private employers. Thus, the same criteria and indices of standards effectiveness contained in §§ 1902.3(c) and 1902.4(a) and (b) would apply to the public employee program. Where hazards are unique to public employment, all appropriate indices of effectiveness, such as those dealing with temporary emergency standards, development of standards, employee information, variances, and protective equipment, would be applicable to standards for such hazards.

    (iii) Enforcement. Although section 18(c)(6) of the Act requires State public employee programs to be as effective as standards contained in the State plan, minimum enforcement elements are required to ensure an effective and comprehensive public employee program as follows:

    (A) Regular inspections of workplaces, including inspections in response to valid employee complaints;

    (B) A means for employees to bring possible violations to the attention of inspectors;

    (C) Notification to employees, or their representatives, of decisions that no violations are found as a result of complaints by such employees or their representatives, and informal review of such decisions;

    (D) A means of informing employees of their protections and obligations under the Act;

    (E) Protection for employees against discharge of discrimination because of the exercise of rights under the Act;

    (F) Employee access to information on their exposure to toxic materials or harmful physical agents and prompt notification to employees when they have been or are being exposed to such materials or agents at concentrations or levels above those specified by the applicable standards;

    (G) Procedures for the prompt restraint or elimination of imminent danger situations;

    (H) A means of promptly notifying employers and employees when an alleged violation has occurred, including the proposed abatement requirements;

    (I) A means of establishing timetables for the correction of violations;

    (J) A program for encouraging voluntary compliance; and

    (K) Such other additional enforcement provisions under State law as may have been included in the State plan.

    (3) In accordance with § 1902.3(b)(3), the State agency or agencies designated to administer the plan throughout the State must retain overall responsibility for the entire plan. Political subdivisions may have the responsibility and authority for the development and enforcement of standards: Provided, that the designated State agency or agencies have adequate authority by statute, regulation, or agreement to insure that the commitments of the State under the plan will be fulfilled.

    (e) Additional indices. Upon his own motion or after consideration of data, views and arguments received in any proceeding held under subpart C of this part, the Assistant Secretary may prescribe additional indices for any State plan which shall be in furtherance of the purpose of this part, as expressed in § 1902.1.

    4. Add §§ 1902.7 through 1902.09 to read as follows: Sec. 1902.7 Injury and illness recording and reporting requirements. 1902.8 Variations and variances. 1902.9 Requirements for approval of State posters.
    § 1902.7 Injury and illness recording and reporting requirements.

    (a) Injury and illness recording and reporting requirements promulgated by State-Plan States must be substantially identical to those in 29 CFR part 1904 on recording and reporting occupational injuries and illnesses. State-Plan States must promulgate recording and reporting requirements that are the same as the Federal requirements for determining which injuries and illnesses will be entered into the records and how they are entered. All other injury and illness recording and reporting requirements that are promulgated by State-Plan States may be more stringent than, or supplemental to, the Federal requirements, but, because of the unique nature of the national recordkeeping program, States must consult with OSHA and obtain approval of such additional or more stringent reporting and recording requirements to ensure that they will not interfere with uniform reporting objectives. State-Plan States must extend the scope of their regulation to State and local government employers.

    (b) A State may not grant a variance to the injury and illness recording and reporting requirements for private sector employers. Such variances may only be granted by Federal OSHA to assure nationally consistent workplace injury and illness statistics. A State may only grant a variance to the injury and illness recording and reporting requirements for State or local government entities in that State after obtaining approval from Federal OSHA.

    (c) A State must recognize any variance issued by Federal OSHA.

    (d) A State may, but is not required, to participate in the Annual OSHA Injury/Illness Survey as authorized by 29 CFR 1904.41. A participating State may either adopt requirements identical to § 1904.41 in its recording and reporting regulation as an enforceable State requirement, or may defer to the Federal regulation for enforcement. Nothing in any State plan shall affect the duties of employers to comply with § 1904.41, when surveyed, as provided by section 18(c)(7) of the Act.

    § 1902.8 Variations and variances.

    (a) The power of the Secretary of Labor under section 16 of the Act to provide reasonable limitations and variations, tolerances, and exemptions to and from any or all provisions of the Act as he may find necessary and proper to avoid serious impairment of the national defense is reserved.

    (b) No action by a State under a plan shall be inconsistent with action by the Secretary under this section of the Act.

    (c) Where a State standard is identical to a Federal standard addressed to the same hazard, an employer or group of employers seeking a temporary or permanent variance from such standard, or portion thereof, to be applicable to employment or places of employment in more than one State, including at least one State with an approved plan, may elect to apply to the Assistant Secretary for such variance under the provisions of 29 CFR part 1905.

    (d) Actions taken by the Assistant Secretary with respect to such application for a variance, such as interim orders, with respect thereto, the granting, denying, or issuing any modification or extension thereof, will be deemed prospectively an authoritative interpretation of the employer or employers' compliance obligations with regard to the State standard, or portion thereof, identical to the Federal standard, or portion thereof, affected by the action in the employment or places of employment covered by the application.

    (e) Nothing herein shall affect the option of an employer or employers seeking a temporary or permanent variance with applicability to employment or places of employment in more than one State to apply for such variance either to the Assistant Secretary or the individual State agencies involved. However, the filing with, as well as granting, denial, modification, or revocation of a variance request or interim order by, either authority (Federal or State) shall preclude any further substantive consideration of such application on the same material facts for the same employment or place of employment by the other authority.

    (f) Nothing herein shall affect either Federal or State authority and obligations to cite for noncompliance with standards in employment or places of employment where no interim order, variance, or modification or extension thereof, granted under State or Federal law applies, or to cite for noncompliance with such Federal or State variance action.

    § 1902.9 Requirements for approval of State posters.

    (a)(1) In order to inform employees of their protections and obligations under applicable State law, of the issues not covered by State law, and of the continuing availability of Federal monitoring under section 18(f) of the Act, States with approved plans shall develop and require employers to post a State poster meeting the requirements set out in paragraph (a)(5) of this section.

    (2) Such poster shall be substituted for the Federal poster under section 8(c)(1) of the Act and § 1903.2 of this chapter where the State attains operational status for the enforcement of State standards as defined in § 1954.3(b) of this chapter.

    (3) Where a State has distributed its poster and has enabling legislation as defined in § 1954.3(b)(1) of this chapter but becomes nonoperational under the provisions of § 1954.3(f)(1) of this chapter because of failure to be at least as effective as the Federal program, the approved State poster may, at the discretion of the Assistant Secretary, continue to be substituted for the Federal poster in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (4) A State may, for good cause shown, request, under 29 CFR part 1953, approval of an alternative to a State poster for informing employees of their protections and obligations under the State plans, provided such alternative is consistent with the Act, § 1902.4(c)(2)(iv) and applicable State law. In order to qualify as a substitute for the Federal poster under this paragraph (a), such alternative must be shown to be at least as effective as the Federal poster requirements in informing employees of their protections and obligations and address the items listed in paragraph (a)(5) of this section.

    (5) In developing the poster, the State shall address but not be limited to the following items:

    (i) Responsibilities of the State, employers and employees;

    (ii) The right of employees or their representatives to request workplace inspections;

    (iii) The right of employees making such requests to remain anonymous;

    (iv) The right of employees to participate in inspections;

    (v) Provisions for prompt notice to employers and employees when alleged violations occur;

    (vi) Protection for employees against discharge or discrimination for the exercise of their rights under Federal and State law;

    (vii) Sanctions;

    (viii) A means of obtaining further information on State law and standards and the address of the State agency;

    (ix) The right to file complaints with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration about State program administration;

    (x) A list of the issues as defined in § 1902.2(c) which will not be covered by State plan;

    (xi) The address of the Regional Office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; and

    (xii) Such additional employee protection provisions and obligations under State law as may have been included in the approved State plan.

    (b) Posting of the State poster shall be recognized as compliance with the posting requirements in section 8(c)(1) of the Act and § 1903.2 of this chapter, provided that the poster has been approved in accordance with subpart B of part 1953 of this chapter. Continued Federal recognition of the State poster is also subject to pertinent findings of effectiveness with regard to the State program under 29 CFR part 1954.

    Subpart C—Procedures for Submission, Approval and Rejection of State Plans 5. In § 1902.10, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 1902.10 Submission.

    (a) An authorized representative of the State agency or agencies responsible for administering the plan shall submit one copy of the plan to the appropriate Assistant Regional Director of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. The State plan shall include supporting papers conforming to the requirements specified in the subpart B of this part, and the State occupational safety and health standards to be included in the plan, including a copy of any specific or enabling State laws and regulations relating to such standards. If any of the representations concerning the requirements of subpart B of this part are dependent upon any judicial or administrative interpretations of the State standards or enforcement provisions, the State shall furnish citations to any pertinent judicial decisions and the text of any pertinent administrative decisions.

    6. In § 1902.11, revise paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
    § 1902.11 General notice.

    (c) The notice shall provide that the plan, or copies thereof, shall be available for inspection and copying at the office of the Director, Office of State Programs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, office of the Assistant Regional Director in whose region the State is located, and an office of the State which shall be designated by the State for this purpose.

    (d) The notice shall afford interested persons an opportunity to submit in writing, data, views, and arguments on the proposal, subjects, or issues involved within 30 days after publication of the notice in the Federal Register. Thereafter the written comments received or copies thereof shall be available for public inspection and copying at the office of the Director, Office of State Programs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, office of the Assistant Regional Director in whose region the State is located, and an office of the State which shall be designated by the State for this purpose.

    7. Add § 1902.16 immediately following § 1902.15 to read as follows:
    § 1902.16 Partial approval of State plans.

    (a) The Assistant Secretary may partially approve a plan under this part whenever:

    (1) The portion to be approved meets the requirements of this part;

    (2) The plan covers more than one occupational safety and health issue; and

    (3) Portions of the plan to be approved are reasonably separable from the remainder of the plan.

    (b) Whenever the Assistant Secretary approves only a portion of a State lan, he may give notice to the State of an opportunity to show cause why a proceeding should not be commenced for disapproval of the remainder of the plan under subpart C of this part before commencing such a proceeding.

    Subpart D—Procedures for Determinations Under Section 18(e) of the Act 8. In § 1902.31, revise the definition of “Development step” to read as follows:
    § 1902.31 Definitions.

    Development step includes, but is not limited to, those items listed in the published developmental schedule, or any revisions thereof, for each plan. A developmental step also includes those items specified in the plan as approved under section 18(c) of the Act for completion by the State, as well as those items which under the approval decision were subject to evaluations and changes deemed necessary as a result thereof to make the State program at least as effective as the Federal program within the 3 years developmental period. (See 29 CFR 1953.4(a)).

    9. Revise § 1902.33 to read as follows:
    § 1902.33 Developmental period.

    Upon the commencement of plan operations after the initial approval of a State's plan by the Assistant Secretary, a State has three years in which to complete all of the developmental steps specified in the plan as approved. Section 1953.4 of this chapter sets forth the procedures for the submission and consideration of developmental changes by OSHA. Generally, whenever a State completes a developmental step, it must submit the resulting plan change as a supplement to its plan to OSHA for approval. OSHA's approval of such changes is then published in the Federal Register.

    10. In § 1902.34, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 1902.34 Certification of completion of developmental steps.

    (c) After a review of the certification and the State's plan, if the Assistant Secretary finds that the State has completed all the developmental steps specified in the plan, he shall publish the certification in the Federal Register.

    § 1902.41 [Amended]
    11. In § 1902.41, remove paragraph (c) and redesignate paragraph (d) as (c). 12. In § 1902.43, revise paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
    § 1902.43 Affirmative 18(e) decision.

    (a) * * *

    (3) An amendment to the appropriate section of part 1952 of this chapter;

    PART 1903—INSPECTIONS, CITATIONS AND PROPOSED PENALTIES 13. The authority citation for part 1903 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 8 and 9 (29 U.S.C. 657, 658); 5 U.S.C. 553; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).

    14. In § 1903.2, revise paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
    § 1903.2 Posting of notice; availability of the Act, regulations and applicable standard.

    (a) * * *

    (2) Where a State has an approved poster informing employees of their protections and obligations as defined in § 1902.9 of this chapter, such poster, when posted by employers covered by the State plan, shall constitute compliance with the posting requirements of section 8(c)(1) of the Act. Employers whose operations are not within the issues covered by the State plan must comply with paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

    PART 1904—RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES 15. The authority citation for part 1904 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    29 U.S.C. 657, 658, 660, 666, 669, 673, Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).

    Subpart D—Other OSHA Injury and Illness Recordkeeping Requirements 16. In § 1904.37, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 1904.37 State recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) Basic requirement. Some States operate their own OSHA programs, under the authority of a State plan as approved by OSHA. States operating OSHA-approved State plans must have occupational injury and illness recording and reporting requirements that are substantially identical to the requirements in this part (see 29 CFR 1902.3(j), 29 CFR 1902.7, and 29 CFR 1956.10(i)).

    PART 1952—APPROVED STATE PLANS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF STATE STANDARDS 17. The authority citation for part 1952 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 667); 29 CFR part 1902; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).

    18. Revise subpart A to read as follows: Subpart A—List of Approved State Plans for Private-Sector and State and Local Government Employees Sec. 1952.1 South Carolina. 1952.2 Oregon. 1952.3 Utah. 1952.4 Washington. 1952.5 North Carolina. 1952.6 Iowa. 1952.7 California. 1952.8 Minnesota. 1952.9 Maryland. 1952.10 Tennessee. 1952.11 Kentucky. 1952.12 Alaska. 1952.13 Michigan. 1952.14 Vermont. 1952.15 Nevada. 1952.16 Hawaii. 1952.17 Indiana. 1952.18 Wyoming. 1952.19 Arizona. 1952.20 New Mexico. 1952.21 Virginia. 1952.22 Puerto Rico. Subpart A—List of Approved State Plans for Private-Sector and State and Local Government Employees
    § 1952.1 South Carolina.

    (a) The South Carolina State plan received initial approval on December 6, 1972.

    (b) The South Carolina State plan received final approval on December 18, 1987.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance officer staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984, South Carolina, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the staffing levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 17 safety and 12 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on January 17, 1986.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/south_carolina.html.

    § 1952.2 Oregon.

    (a) The Oregon State plan received initial approval on December 28, 1972.

    (b) The Oregon State plan received final approval on May 12, 2005.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (“benchmarks”) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required for each State operating an approved State plan. In October 1992, Oregon completed, in conjunction with OSHA, a reassessment of the health staffing level initially established in 1980 and proposed a revised health benchmark of 28 health compliance officers. Oregon elected to retain the safety benchmark level established in the 1980 Report to the Court of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 1980 of 47 safety compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on August 11, 1994.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/oregon.html.

    § 1952.3 Utah.

    (a) The Utah State plan received initial approval on January 10, 1973.

    (b) The Utah State plan received final approval on July 16, 1985.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984, Utah, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 10 safety and 9 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comments and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements effective July 16, 1985.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/utah.html.

    § 1952.4 Washington.

    (a) The Washington State plan received initial approval on January 26, 1973.

    (b) OSHA entered into an operational status agreement with Washington.

    (c) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/washington.html.

    § 1952.5 North Carolina.

    (a) The North Carolina State plan received initial approval on February 1, 1973.

    (b) The North Carolina State plan received final approval on December 18, 1996.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (“benchmarks”) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984, North Carolina, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised benchmarks of 50 safety and 27 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on January 17, 1986. In June 1990, North Carolina reconsidered the information utilized in the initial revision of its 1980 benchmarks and determined that changes in local conditions and improved inspection data warranted further revision of its benchmarks to 64 safety inspectors and 50 industrial hygienists. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on June 4, 1996.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/north_carolina.html.

    § 1952.6 Iowa.

    (a) The Iowa State plan received initial approval on July 20, 1973.

    (b) The Iowa State plan received final approval on July 2, 1985.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984, Iowa, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 16 safety and 13 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements effective July 2, 1985.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/iowa.html.

    § 1952.7 California.

    (a) The California State plan received initial approval on May 1, 1973.

    (b) OSHA entered into an operational status agreement with California.

    (c) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/california.html.

    § 1952.8 Minnesota.

    (a) The Minnesota State plan received initial approval on June 8, 1973.

    (b) The Minnesota State plan received final approval on July 30, 1985.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984 Minnesota, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 31 safety and 12 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on July 30, 1985.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/minnesota.html.

    § 1952.9 Maryland.

    (a) The Maryland State plan received initial approval on July 5, 1973.

    (b) The Maryland State plan received final approval on July 18, 1985.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984 Maryland, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 36 safety and 18 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on July 18, 1985.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/maryland.html.

    § 1952.10 Tennessee.

    (a) The Tennessee State plan received initial approval on July 5, 1973.

    (b) The Tennessee State plan received final approval on July 22, 1985.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984 Tennessee, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 22 safety and 14 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on July 22, 1985.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/tennessee.html.

    § 1952.11 Kentucky.

    (a) The Kentucky State plan received initial approval on July 31, 1973.

    (b) The Kentucky State plan received final approval on June 13, 1985.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984 Kentucky, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 23 safety and 14 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on June 13, 1985.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/kentucky.html.

    § 1952.12 Alaska.

    (a) The Alaska State plan received initial approval on August 10, 1973.

    (b) The Alaska State plan received final approval on September 28, 1984.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. Alaska's compliance staffing benchmarks are 4 safety and 5 health compliance officers.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/alaska.html.

    § 1952.13 Michigan.

    (a) The Michigan State plan received initial approval on October 3, 1973.

    (b) OSHA entered into an operational status agreement with Michigan.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (“benchmarks”) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required for each State operating an approved State plan. In 1992, Michigan completed, in conjunction with OSHA, a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised benchmarks of 56 safety and 45 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on April 20, 1995.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/michigan.html.

    § 1952.14 Vermont.

    (a) The Vermont State plan received initial approval on October 16, 1973.

    (b) OSHA entered into an operational status agreement with Vermont.

    (c) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/vermont.html.

    § 1952.15 Nevada.

    (a) The Nevada State plan received initial approval on January 4, 1974.

    (b) The Nevada State plan received final approval on April 18, 2000.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In July 1986 Nevada, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 11 safety and 5 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on September 2, 1987.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/nevada.html.

    § 1952.16 Hawaii.

    (a) The Hawaii State plan received initial approval on January 4, 1974.

    (b) The Hawaii State plan received final approval on May 4, 1984.

    (c) On September 21, 2012 OSHA modified the State Plan's approval status from final approval to initial approval, and reinstated concurrent federal enforcement authority pending the necessary corrective action by the State Plan in order to once again meet the criteria for a final approval determination. OSHA and Hawaii entered into an operational status agreement to provide a workable division of enforcement responsibilities.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/hawaii.html.

    § 1952.17 Indiana.

    (a) The Indiana State plan received initial approval on March 6, 1974.

    (b) The Indiana State plan received final approval on September 26, 1986.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984 Indiana, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 47 safety and 23 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on January 17, 1986.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/indiana.html.

    § 1952.18 Wyoming.

    (a) The Wyoming State plan received initial approval on May 3, 1974.

    (b) The Wyoming State plan received final approval on June 27, 1985.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984 Wyoming, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 6 safety and 2 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on June 27, 1985.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/wyoming.html.

    § 1952.19 Arizona.

    (a) The Arizona State plan received initial approval on November 5, 1974.

    (b) The Arizona State plan received final approval on June 20, 1985.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984, Arizona in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 9 safety and 6 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on June 20, 1985.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/arizona.html.

    § 1952.20 New Mexico.

    (a) The New Mexico State plan received initial approval on December 10, 1975.

    (b) OSHA entered into an operational status agreement with New Mexico.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (“benchmarks”) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required for each State operating an approved State plan. In May 1992, New Mexico completed, in conjunction with OSHA, a reassessment of the staffing levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised benchmarks of 7 safety and 3 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on August 11, 1994.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/new_mexico.html.

    § 1952.21 Virginia.

    (a) The Virginia State plan received initial approval on September 28, 1976.

    (b) The Virginia State plan received final approval on November 30, 1988.

    (c) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall, compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984 Virginia, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 38 safety and 21 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on January 17, 1986.

    (d) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/virginia.html.

    § 1952.22 Puerto Rico.

    (a) The Puerto Rico State plan received initial approval on August 30, 1977.

    (b) OSHA entered into an operational status agreement with Puerto Rico.

    (c) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/puerto_rico.html.

    19. Add subpart B to read as follows: Subpart B—List of Approved State Plans for State and Local Government Employees Sec. 1952.23 Connecticut. 1952.24 New York. 1952.25 New Jersey. 1952.26 The Virgin Islands. 1952.27 Illinois. Subpart B—List of Approved State Plans for State and Local Government Employees
    § 1952.23 Connecticut.

    (a) The Connecticut State plan for State and local government employees received initial approval from the Assistant Secretary on November 3, 1978.

    (b) In accordance with 29 CFR 1956.10(g), a State is required to have a sufficient number of adequately trained and competent personnel to discharge its responsibilities under the plan. The Connecticut Public Employee Only State plan provides for three (3) safety compliance officers and one (1) health compliance officer as set forth in the Connecticut Fiscal Year 1986 grant. This staffing level meets the “fully effective” benchmarks established for Connecticut for both safety and health.

    (c) The plan only covers State and local government employers and employees within the State. For additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/connecticut.html.

    § 1952.24 New York.

    (a) The New York State plan for State and local government employees received initial approval from the Assistant Secretary on June 1, 1984.

    (b) The plan, as revised on April 28, 2006, provides assurances of a fully trained, adequate staff, including 29 safety and 21 health compliance officers for enforcement inspections and 11 safety and 9 health consultants to perform consultation services in the public sector. The State has also given satisfactory assurances of continued adequate funding to support the plan.

    (c) The plan only covers State and local government employers and employees within the State. For additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/new_york.html.

    § 1952.25 New Jersey.

    (a) The New Jersey State plan for State and local government employees received initial approval from the Assistant Secretary on January 11, 2001.

    (b) The plan further provides assurances of a fully trained, adequate staff, including 20 safety and 7 health compliance officers for enforcement inspections, and 4 safety and 3 health consultants to perform consultation services in the public sector, and 2 safety and 3 health training and education staff. The State has assured that it will continue to provide a sufficient number of adequately trained and qualified personnel necessary for the enforcement of standards as required by 29 CFR 1956.10. The State has also given satisfactory assurance of adequate funding to support the plan.

    (c) The plan only covers State and local government employers and employees within the State. For additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/new_jersey.html.

    § 1952.26 The Virgin Islands.

    (a) The Virgin Islands State plan for Public Employees Only was approved on July 23, 2003.

    (b) The plan only covers State and local government employers and employees within the State. For additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/virgin_islands.html.

    § 1952.27 Illinois.

    (a) The Illinois State plan for state and local government employees received initial approval from the Assistant Secretary on September 1, 2009.

    (b) The Plan further provides assurances of a fully trained, adequate staff within three years of plan approval, including 11 safety and 3 health compliance officers for enforcement inspections, and 3 safety and 2 health consultants to perform consultation services in the public sector. The state has assured that it will continue to provide a sufficient number of adequately trained and qualified personnel necessary for the enforcement of standards as required by 29 CFR 1956.10. The state has also given satisfactory assurance of adequate funding to support the Plan.

    (c) The plan only covers State and local government employers and employees within the state. For additional details about the plan, please visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/illinois.html.

    Subparts C through FF [Removed] 20. Remove subparts C through FF. PART 1953—CHANGES TO STATE PLANS 21. The authority citation for part 1953 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 667); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).

    22. In § 1953.3, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 1953.3 General policies and procedures.

    (c) Plan supplement availability. The underlying documentation for identical plan changes shall be maintained by the State. Annually, States shall submit updated copies of the principal documents comprising the plan, or appropriate page changes, to the extent that these documents have been revised. To the extent possible, plan documents will be maintained and submitted by the State in electronic format and also made available in such manner.

    PART 1954—PROCEDURES FOR THE EVALUATION AND MONITORING OF APPROVED STATE PLANS 23. The authority citation for part 1954 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 667); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).

    Subpart A—General 24. In § 1954.3, revise paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (iii) to read as follows:
    § 1954.3 Exercise of Federal discretionary authority.

    (d) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (ii) Subject to pertinent findings of effectiveness under this part, and approval under part 1953 of this chapter, Federal enforcement proceedings will not be initiated where an employer has posted the approved State poster in accordance with the applicable provisions of an approved State plan and § 1902.9 of this chapter.

    (iii) Subject to pertinent findings of effectiveness under this part, and approval under part 1953 of this chapter, Federal enforcement proceedings will not be initiated where an employer is in compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of an approved State plan as provided in § 1902.7 of this chapter.

    PART 1955—PROCEDURES FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL OF STATE PLANS 25. The authority citation for part 1955 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 8 and 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 657, 667); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).

    Subpart A—General 26. In § 1955.2, revise paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
    § 1955.2 Definitions.

    (a) * * *

    (4) Developmental step includes, but is not limited to, those items listed in the published developmental schedule, or any revisions thereto, for each plan. A developmental step also includes those items in the plan as approved under section 18(c) of the Act, as well as those items in the approval decision which are subject to evaluations (see e.g., approval of Michigan plan), which were deemed necessary to make the State program at least as effective as the Federal program within the 3 year developmental period. (See part 1953 of this chapter.)

    PART 1956—STATE PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF STATE STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN STATES WITHOUT APPROVED PRIVATE EMPLOYEE PLANS 27. The authority citation for part 1956 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    Section 18 (29 U.S.C. 667), 29 CFR parts 1902 and 1955, and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).

    Subparts E through I [Removed] 28. Remove subparts E through I.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19226 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0011] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation, Tennessee River 463.0 to 467.0; Chattanooga, TN AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is proposing a special local regulated area for all waters of the Tennessee River, beginning at mile marker 463.0 and ending at mile marker 467.0. This proposed regulated area is necessary to provide safety for the approximately 2,500 swimmers that will be participating in the “Ironman Chattanooga” on the Tennessee River from mile marker 463.0 to mile marker 467.0. Entry into this area will be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or designated representative.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before September 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Ashley Schad, MSD Nashville Nashville, TN, at 615-736-5421 or at [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

    1. Submitting Comments

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

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2015-0011) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

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

    2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2015-0011) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    3. Privacy Act

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

    4. Public Meeting

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

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The “Ironman Chattanooga” is a second year event being held on September 27, 2015. The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley has determined that additional safety measures are necessary to protect race participants, spectators, and waterway users during this event. Therefore, the Coast Guard proposes to establish a special local regulation for all waters of the Tennessee River beginning at mile marker 463.0 and ending at mile marker 467.0. This proposed regulation would provide safety for the approximately 2,500 swimmers that will be racing in the “Ironman Chattanooga.”

    The legal basis and authorities for this proposed rulemaking establishing a special local regulation are found in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorizes the Coast Guard to establish and define special local regulations for regattas under 33 CFR 100.

    C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley is proposing a special local regulated area for all waters of the Tennessee River beginning at mile marker 463.0 and ending at mile marker 467.0. Vessels or persons would not be permitted to enter into, depart from, or move within this area without permission from the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or designated representative. Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the proposed special local regulated area will be required to request permission from the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley, or designated representative. They would be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 13 or 16, or through Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley at 1-800-253-7465. This proposed rule would be enforced from 5:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. on September 27, 2015. The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley would inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the special local regulated area as well if any changes in the planned schedule.

    E. Regulatory Analyses

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

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit mile marker 463.0 to mile marker 467.0 on the Tennessee River, from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on September 27, 2015. This proposed special local regulated area will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as it will be enforced for only hours. Additionally, although the proposed special local regulated area will apply to the entire width of the river, traffic will be allowed to pass through the area with the permission of the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or designated representative.

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

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

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

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

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

    9. Civil Justice Reform

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

    10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

    13. Technical Standards

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

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley establishing a special local regulation for all waters of the Tennessee River beginning at mile marker 463.0 and ending at mile marker 467.0 to provide safety for the approximately 2,500 swimmers that will be racing in the “Ironman Chattanooga.” This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

    PART 100—REGATTAS AND MARINE PARADES 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. A new temporary § 100.35T08-0011 is added to read as follows:
    § 100.35T08-0011 Special Local Regulation; Tennessee River Mile 463.0 to 467.0, Chattanooga, TN.

    (a) Location of Regulated Area. All waters of the Tennessee River beginning at mile marker 463.0 and ending at mile marker 467.0.

    (b) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on September 27, 2015. The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notice to mariners of the enforcement period for the special local regulation.

    (c) Special Local Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 100.35 as well as the regulations in this section apply to the Regulated Area.

    (2) Entry into the Regulated Area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative.

    (3) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the Regulated Area must request permission from the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a designated representative. U.S. Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley may be contacted on VHF Channel 13 or 16, or at 1-800-253-7465.

    (4) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley and designated U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel. On-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard.

    Dated: July 29, 2015. R.V. Timme, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20403 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0259; FRL-9932-33-Region 6] Clean Air Act Redesignation Substitute for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; Texas AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a redesignation substitute demonstration provided by the State of Texas that the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1-hour ozone nonattainment area (HGB area) has attained the revoked 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, and that it will maintain that NAAQS for ten years from the date of the EPA's approval of this demonstration. Final approval of the redesignation substitute demonstration will result in the State no longer being required to adopt any additional applicable 1-hour ozone NAAQS requirements for the area which have not already been approved into the State Implementation Plan (SIP). In addition, final approval will allow Texas to seek to revise the Texas SIP to remove anti-backsliding measures from the active portion of its SIP if it can demonstrate, pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(1), that such revision would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any applicable NAAQS, or any other requirement of the CAA.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before September 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0259, by one of the following methods:

    www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions.

    Email: Ms. Tracie Donaldson at [email protected].

    Mail or delivery: Ms. Mary Stanton, Chief, Air State and Tribal Operations Section (6PD-S), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0259. 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 EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. 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.

    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).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tracie Donaldson, (214) 665-6633, [email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please contact Ms. Donaldson.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. Background

    In 1979, under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA established primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged over a 1-hour period (44 FR 8202, February 8, 1979). Primary standards are set to protect human health while secondary standards are set to protect public welfare. In 1997 we revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period (62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997).1 In 2008 we further revised the primary and secondary ozone NAAQS to 0.075 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). Ozone nonattainment areas are classified based on the severity of their ozone levels based on the area's “design value” (77 FR 30088, 30091, May 21, 2012). The design value represents air quality in the area for the most recent 3 years. The possible classifications are Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, and Extreme. Nonattainment areas with a “lower” classification have ozone levels that are closer to the NAAQS than areas with a “higher” classification.

    1 Subsequently, we lowered the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 ppm and classified the Houston area as a Marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008); 77 FR 30088 30089 (May 21, 2012). This rulemaking does not address the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    In 2004 we published a first phase rule governing implementation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (Phase 1 Rule) (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). The Phase 1 Rule revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and provided that 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas are required to adopt and implement “applicable requirements” according to the area's classification under the 1-hour ozone standard for anti-backsliding purposes (40 CFR 51.905(a)(i)). In a revision to the Phase 1 Rule, we determined that an area's 1-hour designation and classification as of June 15, 2005 would dictate what 1-hour obligations constitute “applicable requirements” (40 CFR 51.900(f), May 26, 2005, 70 FR 30592).2 Applicable anti-backsliding requirements ensure continued momentum toward reducing ozone levels (80 FR 12264, 12297, March 6, 2015). The rules governing ongoing implementation of revoked ozone standards, including revisions to applicable requirements, was further revised effective April 6, 2015 (40 CFR 51.1100, March 6, 2015, 80 FR 12264). This final rule also contains provisions addressing a redesignation substitute for a revoked ozone standard. See 40 CFR 51.1105(b).

    2 As of April 6, 2015, 40 CFR 51.900(f) was replaced by 40 CFR 51.1100(o). See 40 CFR 51.919 and 80 FR 12312, Mar. 6, 2015.

    The final rule for implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS provides that an area will be subject to the anti-backsliding obligations for a revoked NAAQS until we approve (1) a redesignation to attainment for the area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS or (2) a demonstration for the area in a redesignation substitute procedure for a revoked NAAQS (40 CFR 51.1105(b)(1)). As explained more fully in the preambles to the proposed and final rules, the redesignation substitute demonstration must show that the area (1) has attained that revoked NAAQS due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions and (2) will maintain that revoked NAAQS for 10 years from the date of EPA's approval of the showing. The rule also provides that if, after notice and comment rulemaking, we approve a redesignation substitute for a revoked NAAQS, the state may request that provisions for nonattainment new source review (NSR) for that revoked NAAQS be removed, and that other anti-backsliding obligations for that revoked NAAQS be shifted to contingency measures provided that such action is consistent with CAA sections 110(l) and 193 (40 CFR 51.1105(b)(2)).

    The HGB area consists of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller counties in Texas. Under the 1990 CAA Amendments the area was classified as a Severe ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (November 6, 1991, 56 FR 56694 and CAA section 181(a)(1)). We approved a 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration for the area (71 FR 52670, September 6, 2006). However, the EPA subsequently determined that the area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by its applicable attainment date of November 15, 2007 (June 19, 2012, 77 FR 36400). As discussed below, ambient air quality monitoring data for ozone indicates that the area is now attaining the 1-hour ozone standard.

    Texas provided the “Redesignation Substitute Report for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria One-Hour Standard Nonattainment Area” (redesignation substitute report) to EPA on July 22, 2014. This report was developed consistent with the redesignation substitute option we proposed to create in our June 6, 2013 proposal (which was subsequently adopted in the March 6, 2015 final rule). The report is available through www.regulations.gov (e-docket EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0259).

    II. EPA's Evaluation of the Houston Redesignation Substitute Report

    To determine whether we should approve the 1-hour ozone redesignation substitute for the HGB area we evaluated the redesignation substitute report provided by Texas and the ambient ozone data for the area in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database. To evaluate the report we used the applicable portions of our September 4, 1992 memo “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment” (www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t5/memoranda/redesignmem090492.pdf). A detailed discussion of our evaluation can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action. The TSD can be accessed through www.regulations.gov (e-docket EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0259).

    A. Has the area attained the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions?

    Ambient air quality found in the AQS database shows that the HGB area attained the 1-hour ozone standard at the end of 2013 and maintained the standard the following year (Table 1). The area continues to maintain the 1-hour ozone standard so far in 2015 based on available data.

    Table 1—1-Hour Design Values for the HGB Area [2011-2013 and 2012-2014] Years 1-Hour ozone design value 2011-2013 0.12 ppm (121 parts per billion). 2012-2014 0.11 ppm (111 parts per billion). Preliminary 2013-2015 0.11 ppm (107 parts per billion).

    In 2013, all monitors in the HGB area had expected exceedances less than the threshold of 1.0 per year and only one monitor in the HGB area, the Houston East monitor (C1), had more than 1.0 expected exceedance in 2011 and 2012. A more detailed table of expected 1-hour ozone exceedances for the HGB monitors based on ozone data can be found in the TSD.

    The HGB area redesignation substitute report provides information on emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and regulations that reduced these emissions. NOX and VOCs are ozone precursors. Texas identified control measures for both the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP and the 1997 ozone attainment demonstration SIP that led to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. The 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP was approved on September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52670). The 1997 ozone attainment demonstration SIP was approved on January 2, 2014 (79 FR 57). Additionally, we have approved SIPs for the HGB area that document continuous emissions reductions due to permanent and enforceable measures for the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone standards (70 FR 7407, February 14, 2005; 74 FR 18298, April 22, 2009; 79 FR 51, January 2, 2014). Given our previous actions approving Texas SIPs pertaining to permanent and enforceable measures, we agree with Texas' conclusion that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. More detail on our review can be found in the TSD.

    B. Will the area maintain the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS for 10 years from the date of our approval?

    To demonstrate that the HGB area will maintain the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS for 10 years from the date of our approval of the redesignation substitute, the Texas report provided information on projected emissions of ozone precursors (Tables 2 and 3). The emission projections show that (1) NOx emissions will continue to decrease through 2026 and (2) VOC emissions will decrease through 2023 and increase by 2.71 tons per year (tpy) from 2023 to 2026 (514.49 tpy in 2023 to 517.20 tpy in 2026, an increase of 0.5%). We reviewed this information and agree with the conclusion that the area will maintain the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS for 10 years from the date of our approval. Based on photochemical modeling analyses showing that the formation of ozone in the HGB area is more sensitive to NOX than to VOC emissions, the small increase in VOC emissions during the 10-year maintenance period is expected to be more than offset by the 18% decrease in NOX emissions during this same period. More detail on our review can be found in the TSD.

    Table 2—NOX Emission Projections [tons per day] Category 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 Point Sources 108.48 126.31 126.82 127.01 127.20 127.39 Area Sources 21.15 22.19 22.90 23.28 23.17 23.23 On-Road Mobile Sources 181.28 127.70 88.85 69.80 59.28 54.51 Non-Road Mobile Sources 121.11 106.99 94.99 83.70 75.54 68.98 Total 432.02 383.19 333.56 303.79 285.19 274.11 Table 3—VOC Emission Projections [tons per day] Category 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 Point Sources 96.11 100.81 102.86 103.29 103.71 104.12 Area Sources 308.74 321.92 332.43 339.67 342.58 346.13 On-Road Mobile Sources 80.92 60.43 46.51 40.51 38.09 36.93 Non-Road Mobile Sources 49.92 38.33 33.34 30.86 30.11 30.02 Total 535.69 521.49 515.14 514.33 514.49 517.20 III. Proposed Action

    Based on the CAA's criteria for redesignation to attainment (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)) and the regulation providing for a redesignation substitute (40 CFR 51.1105(b)), EPA is proposing to find that Texas has successfully demonstrated it has met the requirements for approval of a redesignation substitute for the revoked 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS. We are proposing to approve the redesignation substitute for the HGB area based on our determination that the demonstration provided by the State of Texas shows that the HGB area has attained the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, and that it will maintain that NAAQS for ten years from the date of the EPA's approval of this demonstration. As we no longer redesignate nonattainment areas to attainment for the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS, approval of the demonstration would serve as a redesignation substitute under the EPA's implementing regulations. Under this proposed action, Texas would no longer be required to adopt any additional applicable 1-hour ozone NAAQS requirements for the area which have not already been approved into the SIP (40 CFR 51.1105(b)(1)). If this proposed action is finalized, it would also allow the state to request that the EPA approve the removal or revision of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment NSR provisions in the SIP and, upon a showing of consistency with the anti-backsliding checks in CAA sections 110(1) and 193 (if applicable), shift 1-hour ozone NAAQS requirements that are contained in the active portion of the SIP to the contingency measures portion of the SIP (40 CFR 51.1105(b)(2)). We note that because the HGB area was classified as Severe nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the Severe classification NSR requirements would continue to apply if the 1-hour NSR provisions are removed (October 1, 2008, 73 FR 56983).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely proposes to approve a demonstration provided by the State of Texas and find that the HGB area is no longer subject to the anti-backsliding obligations for additional measures for the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS; and imposes no additional requirements. Accordingly, I certify that this proposed 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 et seq.). Because this proposed rule does not impose any additional enforceable duties, it 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). This proposed rule also 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve a demonstration provided by the State of Texas and find that the HGB area is no longer subject to the anti-backsliding obligations for additional measures for the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS; and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

    The proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Additionally, this proposed rule does not involve establishment of technical standards, and thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 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 has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The rulemaking does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment because approving the demonstration provided by Texas and finding that the HGB area is no longer subject to the anti-backsliding obligations for additional measures for the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS does not alter the emission reduction measures that are required to be implemented in the HGB area, which was classified as Severe nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. See 73 FR 56983, October 1, 2008, and 40 CFR 51.1105. Additionally, the proposed rule is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 29, 2015. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20024 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Parts 409, 424, and 484 [CMS-1625-CN2] RIN 0938-AS46 Medicare and Medicaid Programs; CY 2016 Home Health Prospective Payment System Rate Update; Home Health Value-Based Purchasing Model; and Home Health Quality Reporting Requirements; Correction AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This document corrects technical errors in the proposed rule that appeared in the July 10, 2015 Federal Register entitled “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; CY 2016 Home Health Prospective Payment System Rate Update; Home Health Value-Based Purchasing Model; and Home Health Quality Reporting Requirements.”

    DATES:

    The comment due date for the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on July 10, 2015 (80 FR 39839) remains September 4, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michelle Brazil, (410) 786-1648.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In FR Doc. 2015-16790, published in the Federal Register on July 10, 2015 (80 FR 39839), there were technical errors that are identified and corrected in the Correction of Errors section of this correcting document.

    II. Summary of Errors

    On page 39898, in our discussion of collection of OASIS data, we inadvertently provided an incorrect Web address for a Web site.

    On page 39898, in our discussion concerning the specifications and data for NQF #0678, we inadvertently provided an incorrect Web address for a Web site.

    III. Correction of Errors

    In proposed rule FR Doc. 2015-16790, beginning on page 39840 in the issue of July 10, 2015, make the following corrections in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    1. On page 39898, in the first column, in the second full paragraph, the reference to the Web site beginning on line 25, “OASIS Manual http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/” is corrected to read “downloads section https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/HomeHealthQualityInits/HHQIQualityMeasures.html”.

    2. On page 39898, in the second column, in the first full paragraph, the Web site in line 11, “http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/Post-Acute-Care-Quality-Initiatives/PAC-Quality-Initiatives.html” is corrected to read “https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/HomeHealthQualityInits/HHQIQualityMeasures.html”.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Madhura Valverde, Executive Secretary to the Department, Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20336 Filed 8-14-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635 [Docket No. 150413357-5667-01] RIN 0648-XD898 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 2016 Atlantic Shark Commercial Fishing Season AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed rule would establish opening dates and adjust quotas for the 2016 fishing season for the Atlantic commercial shark fisheries. Quotas would be adjusted as allowable based on any over- and/or underharvests experienced during 2015 and previous fishing seasons. In addition, NMFS proposes season openings based on adaptive management measures to provide, to the extent practicable, fishing opportunities for commercial shark fishermen in all regions and areas. The proposed measures could affect fishing opportunities for commercial shark fishermen in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received by September 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0068, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0068, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Margo Schulze-Haugen, NMFS/SF1, 1315 East-West Highway, National Marine Fisheries Service, SSMC3, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Guý DuBeck or Karyl Brewster-Geisz at 301-427-8503.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Atlantic commercial shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its amendments are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. For the Atlantic commercial shark fisheries, the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments established, among other things, commercial shark retention limits, commercial quotas for species and management groups, accounting measures for under- and overharvests for the shark fisheries, and adaptive management measures such as flexible opening dates for the fishing season and inseason adjustments to shark trip limits, which provide management flexibility in furtherance of equitable fishing opportunities, to the extent practicable, for commercial shark fishermen in all regions and areas.

    This proposed rule would establish quotas and opening dates for the 2016 Atlantic shark commercial fishing season based in part on the management measures in the recently published final rule for Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. In Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS established, among other things, an adjusted commercial shark retention limit for large coastal sharks (LCS) other than sandbar sharks, revised sandbar shark quota within the shark research fishery, sub-regional quotas in the Gulf of Mexico region for LCS, revised total allowable catches (TACs) and commercial quotas for the non-blacknose small coastal shark (SCS) fisheries in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions, and revised management measures for blacknose sharks.

    2016 Proposed Quotas

    This proposed rule would adjust the quota levels for the different shark stocks and management groups for the 2016 Atlantic commercial shark fishing season based on over- and underharvests that occurred during 2015 and previous fishing seasons, consistent with existing regulations at 50 CFR 635.27(b)(2). Over- and underharvests are accounted for in the same region, sub-region, and/or fishery in which they occurred the following year, except that large overharvests may be spread over a number of subsequent fishing years to a maximum of 5 years. Shark stocks or management groups that contain one or more stocks that are overfished, have overfishing occurring, or have an unknown status, will not have underharvest carried over in the following year. Stocks that are not overfished and have no overfishing occurring may have any underharvest carried over in the following year, up to 50 percent of the base quota.

    The quotas in this proposed rule are based on dealer reports received as of July 17, 2015. In the final rule, NMFS will adjust the quotas based on dealer reports received as of a date in mid-October or mid-November 2015. For prior shark quota rules, NMFS has used information from dealer reports received as of October 15 through November 26, depending on the timing of the final rule. Thus, all of the 2016 proposed quotas for the respective stocks and management groups will be subject to further adjustment after NMFS considers the October/November dealer reports. All dealer reports that are received after the October or November date will be used to adjust the 2017 quotas, as appropriate.

    For the sandbar shark, aggregated LCS, hammerhead shark, non-blacknose SCS, blacknose shark, blue shark, porbeagle shark, and pelagic shark (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) management groups, the 2015 underharvests cannot be carried over to the 2016 fishing season because those stocks or management groups have been determined to be overfished, overfished with overfishing occurring, or have an unknown status. Thus, for all of these management groups, the 2016 proposed quotas would be equal to the applicable base quota minus any overharvests that occurred in 2015 and previous fishing seasons, as applicable.

    For the Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark management group, which has been determined not to be overfished and to have no overfishing occurring, available underharvest (up to 50 percent of the base quota) from the 2015 fishing season may be applied to the 2016 quota, and NMFS proposes to do so.

    Regarding the blacknose shark management group, in the final rule establishing quotas for the 2014 shark season (78 FR 70500; November 26, 2013), NMFS decided to spread out the 2012 overharvest of the blacknose shark quota across 5 years (2014 through 2018) in both the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. In the final rule for Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS modified the regulations for blacknose shark fisheries in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. In the Gulf of Mexico region and north of 34° N. latitude in the Atlantic region, NMFS has prohibited the retention of blacknose sharks. Thus, in this proposed rule, NMFS is not proposing any quotas for blacknose sharks in those areas. However, NMFS is proposing to reduce the blacknose shark quota for fishermen operating south of 34° N. latitude in the Atlantic region by 0.5 mt dw to account for the 2012 overharvest. Thus, before accounting for any landings from 2015, the 2016 adjusted annual quota for the Atlantic blacknose shark management group would be 16.7 mt dw (36,818 lb dw).

    Based on current landings, the 2015 blacknose shark management group in the Atlantic region was overharvested by 2.9 mt dw (6,328 lb dw). NMFS is proposing to spread out the overharvest accounting over 3 years from 2016 through 2018, the same time period remaining for accounting for the 2012 overharvest, and NMFS is specifically requesting comments on whether NMFS should adjust the quotas over three or more (four or five) years or simply account for the entire overharvest in 2016. In the Atlantic region, accounting for the overharvest over 3 years would result in an overharvest reduction of 1.0 mt dw for 2016 and 2017, and 0.9 mt dw for 2018. This reduction combined with the 0.5 mt dw 2012 overharvest reduction represents 9 percent of the Atlantic region blacknose quota and thus would have both minimal economic impacts on the fishermen and minimal ecological impacts on the stocks. If NMFS reduced the 2016 quota by the full overharvest amount combined with the 2012 overharvest reduction (3.4 mt dw) in one year, this would result in a 20 percent reduction from the base quota, which could negatively impact fishermen and data collection, since the reduced quota would be below regional landings from past fishing seasons and could result in closing the non-blacknose SCS fishery in the Atlantic region south of 34° N. latitude earlier than it has in recent years. NMFS does not believe that accounting for the overharvests over time (1.0 mt dw for 2016 and 2017, and 0.9 mt dw for 2018) would affect the status of the Atlantic blacknose stock because fishing mortality levels would be maintained below levels established in the rebuilding plan. Thus, NMFS is proposing to reduce the 2016 base annual quota for the blacknose shark management group in the Atlantic region based on overharvests from 2012 and 2015.

    The proposed 2016 quotas by species and management group are summarized in Table 1; the description of the calculations for each stock and management group can be found below.

    BILLING CODE 3510-22-P EP18AU15.000 EP18AU15.001 EP18AU15.002 BILLING CODE 3510-22-C 1. Proposed 2016 Quotas for the Blacktip Sharks in the Gulf of Mexico Region

    The 2016 proposed commercial quota for blacktip sharks in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region is 28.9 mt dw (63,835 lb dw) and the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region is 266.6 mt dw (587,538 lb dw). As of July 17, 2015, preliminary reported landings for blacktip sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region were at 89 percent (291.1 mt dw) of their 2015 quota levels. Reported landings have not exceeded the 2015 quota to date, and the fishery was closed on May 3, 2015 (80 FR 24836). Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks have not been declared to be overfished, to have overfishing occurring, or to have an unknown status. Pursuant to § 635.27(b)(2)(ii), underharvests for blacktip sharks within the Gulf of Mexico region therefore could be applied to the 2015 quotas up to 50 percent of the base quota. In the final rule establishing the 2015 quotas (79 FR 71331; December 2, 2014), the 2014 Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark quota was underharvested by 72.0 mt dw (158,602 lb dw). After the final rule establishing the 2015 quotas published, late dealer reports indicated the quota was underharvested by an additional 1.4 mt dw (3,142 lb dw), for a total underharvest of 73.4 mt dw (161,744 lb dw). During the 2015 fishing season to date, the regional Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark quota has been underharvested by 37.5 mt (82,531 lb dw). Accordingly, NMFS proposes to increase the 2016 Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark quota by 38.9 mt dw (37.5 mt dw underharvest in 2015 + 1.4 mt dw additional underharvest from 2014), which is less than the 50 percent limit (128.3 mt dw) allowed pursuant to the regulations. Thus, the proposed commercial regional Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark quota is 295.5 mt dw.

    Recently, NMFS implemented Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, which, among other things, established sub-regional quotas for the Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark management group. Under these regulations, the eastern sub-region receives 9.8 percent of the regional Gulf of Mexico quota and the western sub-region receives 90.2 percent. Thus, the proposed eastern sub-regional Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark commercial quota is 28.9 mt dw and the proposed western sub-regional Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark commercial quota is 266.6 mt dw.

    2. Proposed 2016 Quotas for the Aggregated LCS in the Gulf of Mexico Region

    The 2016 proposed commercial quota for aggregated LCS in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region is 85.5 mt dw (188,593 lb dw) and the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region is 72.0 mt dw (158,724 lb dw). As of July 17, 2015, preliminary reported landings for aggregated LCS in the Gulf of Mexico region were at 96 percent (150.4 mt dw) of their 2015 quota levels. Reported landings have not exceeded the 2015 quota to date, and the fishery was closed on May 3, 2015 (80 FR 24836). Given the unknown status of some of the shark species within the Gulf of Mexico aggregated LCS management group, underharvests cannot be carried over pursuant to § 635.27(b)(2)(ii). Therefore, based on preliminary estimates and consistent with the current regulations at § 635.27(b)(2), NMFS is not proposing to adjust 2016 quotas for aggregated LCS in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and western Gulf of Mexico sub-regions, because there have not been any overharvests and because underharvests cannot be carried over due to stock status.

    3. Proposed 2016 Quota for the Aggregated LCS in the Atlantic Region

    The 2016 proposed commercial quota for aggregated LCS in the Atlantic region is 168.9 mt dw (372,552 lb dw). As of July 17, 2015, the aggregated LCS fishery in the Atlantic region is still open and preliminary landings indicate 93 percent of the quota is still available. Given the unknown status of some of the shark species within the Atlantic aggregated LCS management group, underharvests cannot be carried over pursuant to § 635.27(b)(2)(ii). Therefore, based on preliminary estimates and consistent with current regulations at § 635.27(b)(2), NMFS is not proposing to adjust the 2016 quota for aggregated LCS in the Atlantic region, because there has not been any overharvests and underharvests cannot be carried over due to stock status.

    4. Proposed 2016 Quotas for Hammerhead Sharks in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Regions

    The 2016 proposed commercial quotas for hammerhead sharks in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region, western Gulf of Mexico sub-region, and Atlantic region are 13.4 mt dw (29,421 lb dw), 11.9 mt dw (23,301 lb dw), and 27.1 mt dw (59,736 lb dw), respectively. As of July 17, 2015, preliminary reported landings for hammerhead sharks were at 54 percent (13.8 mt dw) of their 2015 quota levels in the Gulf of Mexico region. Reported landings have not exceeded the 2015 quota to date, and the fishery was closed on May 3, 2015 (80 FR 24836). Currently, the hammerhead shark fishery in the Atlantic region is still open and preliminary landings indicate 98 percent of the quota is still available. Given the overfished status of hammerhead sharks, underharvests cannot be carried forward pursuant to § 635.27(b)(2)(ii). Therefore, based on preliminary estimates and consistent with the current regulations at § 635.27(b)(2), NMFS is not proposing to adjust 2016 quotas for hammerhead sharks in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region, western Gulf of Mexico sub-region, and Atlantic region, because there have not been any overharvests and because underharvests cannot be carried over due to stock status.

    5. Proposed 2016 Quotas for Research LCS and Sandbar Sharks Within the Shark Research Fishery

    The 2016 proposed commercial quotas within the shark research fishery are 50.0 mt dw (110,230 lb dw) for research LCS and 90.7 mt dw (199,943 lb dw) for sandbar sharks. Within the shark research fishery, as of July 17, 2015, preliminary reported landings of research LCS were at 30 percent (14.8 mt dw) of their 2015 quota levels, and sandbar shark reported landings were at 52 percent (60.6 mt dw) of their 2015 quota levels. Reported landings have not exceeded the 2015 quotas to date. Under § 635.27(b)(2)(ii), because sandbar sharks and scalloped hammerhead sharks within the research LCS management group have been determined to be either overfished or overfished with overfishing occurring, underharvests for these management groups cannot be carried forward to the 2016 quotas. Therefore, based on preliminary estimates and consistent with the current regulations at § 635.27(b)(2), NMFS is not proposing to adjust 2016 quotas in the shark research fishery because there have not been any overharvests and because underharvests cannot be carried over due to stock status.

    6. Proposed 2016 Quota for the Non-Blacknose SCS in the Gulf of Mexico Region

    The 2016 proposed commercial quota for non-blacknose SCS in the Gulf of Mexico region is 107.3 mt dw (236,603 lb dw). As of July 17, 2015, preliminary reported landings of non-blacknose SCS were at 102 percent (46.2 mt dw) of their 2015 quota levels in the Gulf of Mexico region. Because reported landings had exceeded the 2015 quota, the fishery was closed on July 4, 2015 (80 FR 38016). In Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS increased the commercial Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose SCS quota to 112.6 mt dw (248,215 lb dw). Based on the current landings at that time, NMFS re-opened the non-blacknose SCS fishery and the reported landings have not exceeded the revised 2015 base quota to date. In the final rule establishing the 2015 quotas (79 FR 71331; December 2, 2014), the 2015 Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose SCS quota was not overharvested. However, after the final rule establishing the 2015 quotas published, late dealer reports indicated the quota was overharvested by 5.3 mt dw (11,612 lb dw) in 2014. Pursuant to § 635.27(b)(2)(i), overharvest of non-blacknose sharks would be applied to the regional quota over a maximum of 5 years. NMFS is proposing to apply the entire 2014 overharvest to the 2016 regional quota, because the overharvest is relatively small compared to the overall regional quota, and therefore NMFS anticipates minimal impacts from applying the overharvest in a single year. Therefore, based on preliminary estimates and consistent with the current regulations at § 635.27(b)(2), NMFS proposes to reduce the 2016 Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose SCS quota to 107.3 mt dw (112.6 mt dw annual base quota−5.3 mt dw 2014 overharvest = 107.3 mt dw 2016 adjusted annual quota).

    7. Proposed 2016 Quota for the Non-Blacknose SCS in the Atlantic Region

    The 2016 proposed commercial quota for non-blacknose SCS in the Atlantic region is 264.1 mt dw (582,333 lb dw). As of July 17, 2015, preliminary reported landings of non-blacknose SCS were at 56 percent (98.6 mt dw) of their 2015 quota levels in the Atlantic region. Though reported landings had not yet reached or exceeded the 2015 quota, the fishery was closed on June 7, 2015 (80 FR 32040), due to the quota linkage with blacknose sharks in the Atlantic region. In Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS increased the commercial Atlantic non-blacknose SCS quota to 264.1 mt dw (582,333 lb dw), removed the quota linkage between non-blacknose SCS and blacknose sharks for fishermen fishing north of 34° N. latitude, and re-opened the non-blacknose SCS fishery north of 34° N. latitude. Non-blacknose SCS fishing south of 34° N. latitude remained closed in 2015. Given the unknown status of bonnethead sharks within the Atlantic non-blacknose SCS management group, underharvests cannot be carried forward pursuant to § 635.27(b)(2)(ii). Therefore, based on preliminary estimates and consistent with the current regulations at § 635.27(b)(2), NMFS is not proposing to adjust the 2016 quota for non-blacknose SCS in the Atlantic region, because there have not been any overharvests and because underharvests cannot be carried over due to stock status.

    8. Proposed 2016 Quota for the Blacknose Sharks in the Atlantic Region

    The 2016 proposed commercial quota for blacknose sharks in the Atlantic region is 15.7 mt dw (34,700 lb dw). As of July 17, 2015, preliminary reported landings of blacknose sharks were at 116 percent (20.4 mt dw) of their 2015 quota levels in the Atlantic region. Reported landings have exceeded the 2015 quota to date, and the fishery was closed on June 7, 2015 (80 FR 32040). In Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS removed the quota linkage between non-blacknose SCS and blacknose sharks for fishermen fishing north of 34° N. latitude, but the blacknose shark management group south of 34° N. latitude remained closed, since the quota had been landed. Blacknose sharks have been declared to be overfished with overfishing occurring in the Atlantic region. Pursuant to § 635.27(b)(2)(i), overharvests of blacknose sharks would be applied to the regional quota over a maximum of 5 years. As described above, the 2012 blacknose quota was overharvested and NMFS decided to adjust the regional quotas over 5 years from 2014 through 2018 to mitigate the impacts of adjusting for the overharvest in a single year. In 2015, the Atlantic blacknose shark quota was overharvested by 2.9 mt dw (6,328 lb dw). NMFS is proposing to spread the 2015 overharvest over 3 years to mitigate the impacts of adjusting for the overharvest in a single year. Therefore, based on preliminary estimates and consistent with the current regulations at § 635.27(b)(2), the 2016 proposed commercial adjusted base quota for blacknose sharks in the Atlantic region is 15.7 mt dw (34,700 lb dw) (17.2 mt dw annual base quota−0.5 mt dw 2012 adjusted 5-year overharvest−1.0 mt dw 2015 adjusted 3-year overharvest = 15.7 mt dw 2016 adjusted annual quota). Note, the blacknose shark quota is available in the Atlantic region only for those vessels operating south of 34° N. latitude; north of 34° N. latitude; retention, landing, and sale of blacknose sharks is prohibited.

    9. Proposed 2019 Quotas for Pelagic Sharks

    The 2016 proposed commercial quotas for blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, and pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) are 273 mt dw (601,856 lb dw), 1.7 mt dw (3,748 lb dw), and 488 mt dw (1,075,856 lb dw), respectively. The porbeagle shark fishery was closed in 2015 due to overharvest in 2014. As of July 17, 2015, preliminary reported landings of blue sharks and pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle and blue sharks) were at less than 1 percent (0.5 mt dw) and 10 percent (50.7 mt dw) of their 2015 quota levels, respectively. Given these pelagic species are overfished, have overfishing occurring, or have an unknown status, underharvests cannot be carried forward pursuant to § 635.27(b)(2)(ii). Therefore, based on preliminary estimates and consistent with the current regulations at § 635.27(b)(2), NMFS is not proposing to adjust 2016 quotas for blue sharks and pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle and blue sharks), because there have not been any overharvests and because underharvests cannot be carried over due to stock status.

    Proposed Fishing Season Notification for the 2015 Atlantic Commercial Shark Fishing Season

    For each fishery, NMFS considered the seven “Opening Commercial Fishing Season Criteria” listed at § 635.27(b)(3). The “Opening Fishing Season” criteria consider factors such as the available annual quotas for the current fishing season, estimated season length and average weekly catch rates from previous years, length of the season and fishermen participation in past years, impacts to accomplishing objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, temporal variation in behavior or biology target species (e.g., seasonal distribution or abundance), impact of catch rates in one region on another, and effects of delayed season openings.

    Specifically, NMFS examined the 2015 and previous fishing years' over- and/or underharvests of the different management groups to determine the effects of the 2016 proposed commercial quotas on fishermen across regional and sub-regional fishing areas. NMFS also examined the potential season length and previous catch rates to ensure that equitable fishing opportunities would be provided to fishermen in all areas. Lastly, NMFS examined the seasonal variation of the different species/management groups and the effects on fishing opportunities.

    In addition to considering the seven “Opening Commercial Fishing Season Criteria,” NMFS is also considering the revised commercial shark retention limit and other management measures in the final rule for Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP in determining the proposed opening dates for 2016.

    NMFS is proposing that the 2016 Atlantic commercial shark fishing season for all shark management groups in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, open on or about January 1, 2016, after the publication of the final rule for this action. NMFS is also proposing to start the 2016 commercial shark fishing season with the default retention limit of 45 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip.

    In the Atlantic region, NMFS proposes opening the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management groups on or about January 1, 2016. This opening date takes into account all the criteria listed in § 635.27(b)(3), and particularly the criterion that NMFS consider the effects of catch rates in one part of a region precluding vessels in another part of that region from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the different species and/or management quotas. In addition, during the comment periods for the 2015 shark season proposed rule (79 FR 54252; September 11, 2014) and proposed rule for Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (80 FR 2648; January 20, 2015), NMFS received comments from fishermen from all areas of the Atlantic requesting that the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management groups open in January. In public comments during Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, constituents suggested a January opening date such that a portion of the quota could be harvested in the beginning of the year and then the trip limits be reduced such that the rest of the quota could be harvested at the end of the fishing year. As such, NMFS is intending to use the inseason trip limit adjustment criteria in the regulations per § 635.24(a)(8) for the first time in 2016. The inseason trip limit adjustment criteria would allow more equitable fishing opportunities across the fishery. The proposed opening date with the default retention limit of 45 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip should allow fishermen to harvest some of the 2016 quota at the beginning of the year, when sharks are more prevalent in the South Atlantic area. If it appears that the quota is being harvested too quickly to allow fishermen throughout the entire region an opportunity to fish, NMFS would reduce the commercial retention limits taking into account § 635.27(b)(3) and the inseason trip limit adjustment criteria listed in § 635.24(a)(8), particularly the consideration of whether catch rates in one part of a region or sub-region are precluding vessels in another part of that region or sub-region from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the relevant quota (§ 635.24(a)(8)(vi)). If that occurs, NMFS would file with the Office of the Federal Register for publication notification of any inseason adjustments of the retention limit to an appropriate limit between 0 and 55 sharks per trip. NMFS would increase the commercial retention limits per trip at a later date to provide fishermen in the northern portion of the Atlantic region an opportunity to retain non-sandbar LCS.

    For example, the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management groups could open in January and NMFS could allow approximately 30 percent of the quota to be retained. Once the quota reaches about 30 percent, NMFS could reduce the retention limit to incidental levels (3 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip) or another level calculated to reduce the harvest of LCS. If the quota continues to be harvested quickly, NMFS could reduce the retention limit to 0 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip to ensure enough quota remains until later in the year. At some point later in the year, potentially equivalent to recent fishing season opening dates (e.g., July 1 or July 15), NMFS could increase the retention limit to the default level (45 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip) or another amount, as deemed appropriate after considering the inseason trip limit adjustment criteria. If the quota is being harvested too fast or too slow, NMFS could adjust the retention limit appropriately to ensure the fishery remains open most of the rest of the year.

    In the Gulf of Mexico region, opening the fishing season on or about January 1, 2016, for aggregated LCS, blacktip sharks, and hammerhead sharks with the default retention limit of 45 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip would provide, to the extent practicable, equitable opportunities across the fisheries management sub-regions. This opening date takes into account all the criteria listed in § 635.27(b)(3), and particularly the criterion that NMFS consider the length of the season for the different species and/or management group in the previous years and whether fishermen were able to participate in the fishery in those years. Similar to the retention limit adjustment process described for the Atlantic region, NMFS may consider adjusting the retention limit in the Gulf of Mexico region throughout the season to ensure fishermen in all parts of the region have an opportunity to harvest aggregated LCS, blacktip sharks, and hammerhead sharks.

    All of the shark management groups would remain open until December 31, 2016, or until NMFS determines that the fishing season landings for any shark management group has reached, or is projected to reach, 80 percent of the available quota. In the final rule for Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS revised non-linked and linked quotas and explained that the linked quotas are explicitly designed to concurrently close multiple shark management groups that are caught together to prevent incidental catch mortality from causing total allowable catch to be exceeded. If NMFS determines that a non-linked shark species or management group must be closed, then, consistent with § 635.28(b)(2) for non-linked quotas (e.g., eastern Gulf of Mexico blacktip, western Gulf of Mexico blacktip, Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose SCS, or pelagic sharks), NMFS will file for publication with the Office of the Federal Register a notice of closure for that shark species, shark management group, region, and/or sub-region that will be effective no fewer than 5 days from date of filing. From the effective date and time of the closure until NMFS announces, via the publication of a notice in the Federal Register, that additional quota is available and the season is reopened, the fisheries for the shark species or management group are closed, even across fishing years.

    If NMFS determines that a linked shark species or management group must be closed, then, consistent with § 635.28(b)(3) for linked quotas, NMFS will file for publication with the Office of the Federal Register a notice of closure for all of the species and/or management groups in a linked group that will be effective no fewer than 5 days from date of filing. From the effective date and time of the closure until NMFS announces, via the publication of a notice in the Federal Register, that additional quota is available and the season is reopened, the fisheries for all linked species and/or management groups are closed, even across fishing years. The linked quotas of the species and/or management groups are Atlantic hammerhead sharks and Atlantic aggregated LCS; eastern Gulf of Mexico hammerhead sharks and eastern Gulf of Mexico aggregated LCS; western Gulf of Mexico hammerhead sharks and western Gulf of Mexico aggregated LCS; and Atlantic blacknose and Atlantic non-blacknose SCS south of 34° N. latitude. NMFS may close the fishery for the Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark before landings reach, or are expected to reach, 80 percent of the quota, after considering the criteria listed at § 635.28(b)(5).

    NMFS determined that the final rules to implement Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (June 24, 2008, 73 FR 35778; corrected on July 15, 2008, 73 FR 40658), Amendment 5a to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (78 FR 40318; July 3, 2013), and Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management program of coastal states on the Atlantic including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. Pursuant to 15 CFR 930.41(a), NMFS provided the Coastal Zone Management Program of each coastal state a 60-day period to review the consistency determination and to advise the Agency of their concurrence. NMFS received concurrence with the consistency determinations from several states and inferred consistency from those states that did not respond within the 60-day time period. This proposed action to establish opening dates and adjust quotas for the 2016 fishing season for the Atlantic commercial shark fisheries does not change the framework previously consulted upon; therefore, no additional consultation is required.

    Request for Comments

    Comments on this proposed rule may be submitted via http://www.regulations.gov and mail. NMFS solicits comments on this proposed rule by September 17, 2015 (see DATES and ADDRESSES). In addition to comments on the entire rule, NMFS is specifically requesting comments on the proposed 3-year adjustment for the blacknose shark quota in the Atlantic Region to account for the overharvest of blacknose sharks in 2015. NMFS is proposing to spread the overharvested amount over a 3-year period (2016 to 2018) to reduce impacts on the blacknose shark and non-blacknose SCS fisheries, which are linked fisheries in the Atlantic region south of 34° N. latitude. Since the overharvested quota would be spread over 3 years in addition to the 2012 overharvest reduction which continues through 2018, the Atlantic blacknose shark quota would be reduced by 1.5 mt dw (3,221 lb dw) in 2016 and the adjusted quota would be 15.7 mt dw (34,700 lb dw). If additional overharvest occurs, the adjusted blacknose shark quota could be further reduced to account for this potential overharvest. If NMFS accounted for the full 2015 overharvest amount in the 2016 quota in addition to the 2012 overharvest reduction, the blacknose shark quota would be reduced by 3.4 mt dw (7,439 lb dw) and the adjusted quota would be 13.8 mt dw (30,482 lb dw), which could result in an early fishery closure in the Atlantic region south of 34° N. latitude and have adverse impacts for blacknose and non-blacknose fishermen and dealers. This second scenario would not have any 2015 overharvest impacts beyond 2016.

    Public Hearings

    Public hearings on this proposed rule are not currently scheduled. If you would like to request a public hearing, please contact Guý DuBeck or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone at 301-427-8503.

    Classification

    The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

    These proposed specifications are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. The IRFA analysis follows.

    Section 603(b)(1) of the RFA requires Agencies to explain the purpose of the rule. This rule, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, is being proposed to establish the 2016 commercial shark fishing quotas and fishing seasons. Without this rule, the commercial shark fisheries would close on December 31, 2015, and would not open until another action was taken. This proposed rule would be implemented according to the regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments. Thus, NMFS expects few, if any, economic impacts to fishermen other than those already analyzed in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, based on the quota adjustments.

    Section 603(b)(2) of the RFA requires Agencies to explain the rule's objectives. The objectives of this rule are to: Adjust the baseline quotas for all Atlantic shark management groups based on any over- and/or underharvests from the previous fishing year(s) and to establish the opening dates of the various management groups in order to provide, to the extent practicable, equitable opportunities across the fishing management regions and/or sub-regions while also considering the ecological needs of the different shark species.

    Section 603(b)(3) of the RFA requires Federal agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish harvesters. The SBA size standards are $20.5 million for finfish fishing, $5.5 million for shellfish fishing, and $7.5 million for other marine fishing, for-hire businesses, and marinas (79 FR 33467; June 12, 2014). NMFS considers all HMS permit holders to be small entities because they had average annual receipts of less than $20.5 million for finfish-harvesting. The commercial shark fisheries are comprised of fishermen who hold shark directed or incidental limited access permits and the related shark dealers, all of which NMFS considers to be small entities according to the size standards set by the SBA. The proposed rule would apply to the approximately 208 directed commercial shark permit holders, 255 incidental commercial shark permit holders, and 100 commercial shark dealers as of July 2015. NMFS solicits public comment on the IRFA.

    This proposed rule does not contain any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(4)). Similarly, this proposed rule would not conflict, duplicate, or overlap with other relevant Federal rules (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(5)). Fishermen, dealers, and managers in these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements as domestically implemented, domestic laws, and FMPs. These include, but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act.

    Section 603(c) of the RFA requires each IRFA to contain a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which would accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Additionally, the RFA (5 U.S.C.603 (c)(1)-(4)) lists four general categories of significant alternatives that would assist an agency in the development of significant alternatives. These categories of alternatives are: (1) Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) use of performance rather than design standards; and, (4) exemptions from coverage of the rule for small entities. In order to meet the objectives of this proposed rule, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS cannot exempt small entities or change the reporting requirements only for small entities because all the entities affected are considered small entities; therefore, there are no alternatives discussed that fall under the first, third, and fourth categories described above. NMFS does not know of any performance or design standards that would satisfy the aforementioned objectives of this rulemaking while, concurrently, complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act; therefore, there are no alternatives considered under the third category.

    This rulemaking does not establish management measures to be implemented, but rather implements previously adopted and analyzed measures with adjustments, as specified in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments and the Environmental Assessment (EA) that accompanied the 2011 shark quota specifications rule (75 FR 76302; December 8, 2010). Thus, NMFS proposes to adjust quotas established and analyzed in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments by subtracting the underharvest or adding the overharvest as allowable. Thus, NMFS has limited flexibility to modify the quotas in this rule, the impacts of which were analyzed in previous regulatory flexibility analyses.

    Based on the 2014 ex-vessel price, fully harvesting the unadjusted 2016 Atlantic shark commercial baseline quotas could result in total fleet revenues of $4,583,514 (see Table 2). For the Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark management group, NMFS is proposing to increase the baseline sub-regional quotas due to the underharvests in 2015. The increase for the eastern Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark management group could result in a $8,413 gain in total revenues for fishermen in that sub-region, while the increase for the western Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark management group could result in a $77,432 gain in total revenues for fishermen in that sub-region. For the Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose SCS management group, NMFS is proposing to reduce the baseline quota due to the overharvest in 2014. This would cause a potential loss in revenue of $7,571 for the fleet in the Gulf of Mexico region. For the Atlantic blacknose shark management group, NMFS will continue to reduce the baseline quota through 2018 to account for overharvest in 2012 and is proposing to reduce the baseline quota for the next 3 years to account for overharvest in 2015. These reductions would cause a potential loss in revenue of $3,157 for the fleet in the Atlantic region.

    All of these changes in gross revenues are similar to the changes in gross revenues analyzed in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments. The FRFAs for those amendments concluded that the economic impacts on these small entities are expected to be minimal. In the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments and the EA for the 2011 shark quota specifications rule, NMFS stated it would be conducting annual rulemakings and considering the potential economic impacts of adjusting the quotas for under- and overharvests at that time.

    Table 2—Average Ex-Vessel Prices per lb dw for Each Shark Management Group, 2014 Region Species Average
  • ex-vessel
  • meat price
  • Average
  • ex-vessel
  • fin price
  • Gulf of Mexico Blacktip Shark $0.50 $9.53 Aggregated LCS 0.54 10.04 Hammerhead Shark 0.48 10.21 Non-Blacknose SCS 0.36 5.84 Blacknose Shark 0.86 5.84 Atlantic Aggregated LCS 0.75 4.19 Hammerhead Shark 0.57 2.33 Non-Blacknose SCS 0.74 4.00 Blacknose Shark 0.78 4.00 No Region Shark Research Fishery (Aggregated LCS) 0.58 7.68 Shark Research Fishery (Sandbar only) 0.69 10.12 Blue shark 0.67 2.34 Porbeagle shark 1.41 2.34 Other Pelagic sharks 1.41 2.34

    For this rule, NMFS also reviewed the criteria at § 635.27(b)(3) to determine when opening each fishery would provide equitable opportunities for fishermen while also considering the ecological needs of the different species. The opening of the fishing season could vary depending upon the available annual quota, catch rates, and number of fishing participants during the year. For the 2016 fishing season, NMFS is proposing to open all of the shark management groups on the effective date of the final rule for this action (expected to be on or about January 1). The direct and indirect economic impacts would be neutral on a short- and long-term basis, because NMFS is not proposing to change the opening dates of these fisheries from the status quo, except for aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks in the Atlantic.

    Opening the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management groups in the Atlantic region on the effective date of the final rule for this action (expected to be on or about January 1) would result in short-term, direct, moderate, beneficial economic impacts, as fishermen and dealers in the southern portion of the Atlantic region would be able to fish for aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks starting on or about January. These fishermen would be able to fish earlier in the 2016 fishing season compared to the 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2015 fishing seasons, which did not start until June or July. These fishermen commented during the public comment period for the past shark specification rulemakings and Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP that they felt that opening the fishery in July was not fair to them because, by July, the sharks have migrated north and are no longer available. With the implementation of the HMS electronic reporting system in 2013, NMFS now monitors the quota on a more real-time basis compared to the paper reporting system that was in place before 2013. This ability, along with the inseason adjustment criteria in § 635.24(a)(8), should allow NMFS the flexibility to further provide equitable fishing opportunities for fishermen across all regions, to the extent practicable. Depending on how quickly the quota is being harvested, NMFS could reduce the retention limits to ensure that fishermen farther north have sufficient quota for a fishery later in the 2016 fishing season. The direct impacts to shark fishermen in the Atlantic region of reducing the trip limit would depend on the needed reduction in the trip limit and the timing of such a reduction. Therefore, such a reduction in the trip limit is only anticipated to have minor adverse direct economic impacts to fishermen in the short-term; long-term impacts are not anticipated as these reductions would not be permanent.

    In the northern portion of the Atlantic region, a potential January 1 opening for the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management groups, with inseason trip limit adjustments to ensure quota is available later in the season, would have direct, minor, beneficial economic impacts in the short-term for fishermen as they would potentially have access to the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark quotas earlier than in past seasons. Fishermen in this area have stated that, depending on the weather, some aggregated LCS species might be available to retain in January. Thus, fishermen would be able to target or retain aggregated LCS while targeting non-blacknose SCS. There would be indirect, minor, beneficial economic impacts in the short- and long-term for shark dealers and other entities that deal with shark products in this region as they would also have access to aggregated LCS products earlier than in past seasons. Thus, opening the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management groups in January and using inseaon trip limit adjustments to ensure a fishery later in the year in 2016 would cause beneficial cumulative economic impacts, since it would allow for a more equitable distribution of the quotas among constituents in this region, which was the original intent of Amendments 2 and 6.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 6, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19915 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 159 Tuesday, August 18, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA) for the Multifamily Preservation and Revitalization (MPR) Demonstration Program Under Section 514, Section 515, and Section 516 for Fiscal Year 2015 AGENCY:

    Rural Housing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; Correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This document revises five items in the initial notice that appeared in the Federal Register on August 3, 2015, entitled “Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA) for the Multifamily Preservation and Revitalization (MPR) Demonstration Program under Section 514, Section 515, and Section 516 for Fiscal Year 2015.” These items include an application deadline, three Web sites addresses, and a clarification.

    DATES:

    This document is effective August 18, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Greenwalt, [email protected], (314) 457-5933, and/or Abby Boggs [email protected], (615) 783-1382, Finance and Loan Analyst, Multi-Family Housing Preservation and Direct Loan Division, STOP 0782, (Room 1263-S) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0782.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In FR Doc. 2015-19880 of August 3, 2015 (80 FR 45933), make the following corrections:

    1. On page 45933, in the third column, under DATES: item (1), remove “120 calendar days after August 3, 2015,” and add “December 1, 2015,” in its place.

    2. On page 45934, in the third column, under Section I.A.1, in the fourth sentence, remove the Web site address listed as “http://teamrrd.usda.gov/rd/emp_services/directory/states/Combined.doc” and add “http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices” in its place.

    3. On page 45937, in third column, under Section IV.B.2, in the second paragraph, last sentence, remove the Web site address listed as “http://teamrrd.usda.gov/rd/emp_services/directory/states/Combined.doc” and add “http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices” in its place.

    4. On page 45941, in the second column, under Section VI.C, in the second sentence, remove “If no offer is made,” and add “If no offer is made or if the applicant fails to accept or reject the offer presented,” in its place.

    5. On page 45941, in the third column, under Section VIII, in the first sentence, remove the Web site address listed as “http://teamrrd.usda.gov/rd/emp_services/directory/states/Combined.doc” and add “http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices” in its place.

    Dated: August 11, 2015. Tony Hernandez, Administrator, Rural Housing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20399 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-93-2015] Approval of Subzone Status; Toyota Motor Manufacturing Alabama, Inc.; Huntsville, Alabama

    On June 19, 2015, the Acting Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Huntsville-Madison County Airport Authority, grantee of FTZ 83, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 83 on behalf of Toyota Motor Manufacturing Alabama, Inc., in Huntsville, Alabama.

    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (80 FR 36506, 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 establish Subzone 83E is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 83's 2,000-acre activation limit.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20386 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-119-2015] Foreign-Trade Zone 79—Tampa, Florida; Application for Subzone, Swisscosmet Corporation, New Port Richey, Florida

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the City of Tampa, grantee of FTZ 79, requesting subzone status for the facility of Swisscosmet Corporation located in New Port Richey, Florida. 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 Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on August 12, 2015.

    The proposed subzone (0.0187 acres) is located at 5540 Rowan Road in New Port Richey (Pasco County). The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 79. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.

    In accordance with the Board's regulations, Camille Evans 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 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 Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Camille Evans at [email protected] or (202) 482-2350.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20388 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-53-2015] Application for Additional Production Authority; The Coleman Company, Inc.; Subzone 119I; (Textile-Based Personal Flotation Devices) Sauk Rapids, Minnesota

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by The Coleman Company, Inc. (Coleman), operator of Subzone 119I, requesting additional production authority for its facility located in Sauk Rapids, Minnesota. The application conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.23) was docketed on August 12, 2015.

    The Coleman facility (252 employees) is located at 1100 Stearns Drive, Sauk Rapids, Minnesota. The facility is used for the production of personal flotation devices and cushions constructed with textile fabrics. Coleman requested FTZ production authority in a notification proceeding (15 CFR 400.22) in 2014 (see 79 FR 18509-18510, 4-2-2014; Doc. B-31-2014). After an initial review, the requested production authority was approved subject to a restriction that precludes inverted tariff benefits on foreign textile fabrics and cases/bags of textile materials used in production of personal flotation devices and cushions for U.S. consumption.

    The pending application seeks to remove the above-mentioned restriction and to add several new components to Coleman's scope of authority by requesting authority for Coleman to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to personal flotation devices (4.5%, 7.0%) and flotation cushions (6.0%) for the foreign status inputs noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment. The request indicates that the savings from FTZ procedures would help improve the plant's international competitiveness.

    Components and materials sourced from abroad (representing 16% of the value of the finished products) include: Water soluble sensing elements; plastic carry bags; nylon and polyester woven fabrics; webbing of man-made fibers; neoprene fabrics; and, knit polyester fleece fabrics (duty rate ranges from 5 to 20%).

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Pierre Duy of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.

    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 October 19, 2015. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to November 2, 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 Pierre Duy at [email protected] (202) 482-1378.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20385 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-32-2015] Authorization of Production Activity; Foreign-Trade Zone 83; Toyota Motor Manufacturing Alabama, Inc., (Motor Vehicle Engines and Transmissions); Huntsville, Alabama

    On April 14, 2015, Toyota Motor Manufacturing Alabama, Inc., an operator of FTZ 83, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility in Huntsville, Alabama.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (80 FR 27286, 5-13-2015). The FTZ Board has determined that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification is authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20389 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-970] Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Correction to the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lilit Astvatsatrian or William Horn, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6412 or (202) 482-2615, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On July 15, 2015, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the final results of the 2012-2013 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China.1 The period of review (“POR”) is December 1, 2012, through November 30, 2013. The Department is issuing this notice to correct an inadvertent error in the Final Results. Specifically, the Department initiated a review of Jianfeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (“Jianfeng”),2 and the company listed in the Final Results is also Jianfeng, however, the record reflects that the correct company name, and the company to which the Department assigned a separate rate, is Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (“Jiafeng”).3 Accordingly, we intended to include Jiafeng, not Jianfeng, in the list of companies that received a separate rate during the POR as identified in our Final Results. 4

    1See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 80 FR 4476 (July 15, 2015) (“Final Results”).

    2See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 79 FR 6147 (February 3, 2014).

    3See April 3, 2014 Separate Rate Certification for Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (“Jiafeng”).

    4 Note that the Department has also placed a memorandum on the file clarifying how it will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection with respect to certain other companies covered by this review. See “Memorandum Regarding Company Names in Final Results” (August 6, 2015). This clarification is consistent with the names of the companies as published in the Final Results, and the Department is not correcting anything in the Final Results with respect to those companies.

    This correction to the final results of administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

    Dated: August 11, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20390 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-951] Certain Woven Electric Blankets From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Sunset Review and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On July 1, 2015, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated the first sunset review of the antidumping duty order on certain woven electric blankets from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).1 Because no domestic interested party filed a notice of intent to participate in response to the Initiation Notice by the applicable deadline, the Department is revoking the antidumping duty order on certain woven electric blankets from the PRC.

    1See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 80 FR 37586 (July 1, 2015) (“Initiation Notice”).

    DATES:

    Effective date: August 18, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Drew Jackson, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4406.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On August 18, 2010, the Department published the antidumping duty order on certain woven electric blankets from the PRC.2 On July 1, 2015, the Department initiated the sunset review on the antidumping duty order on certain woven electric blankets from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).3 We received no notice of intent to participate in response to the Initiation Notice from domestic interested parties by the applicable deadline.4 As a result, the Department has concluded that no domestic party intends to participate in this sunset review.5 On July 21, 2015, we notified the International Trade Commission, in writing, that we intend to revoke the antidumping duty order on certain woven blankets from the PRC.6

    2See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Woven Electric Blankets from the People's Republic of China, 75 FR 50991 (August 18, 2010) (“Order”).

    3See Initiation Notice.

    4See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).

    5See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(A).

    6See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(2).

    Scope of the Order

    The scope of this order covers finished, semi-finished, and unassembled woven electric blankets, including woven electric blankets commonly referred to as throws, of all sizes and fabric types, whether made of man-made fiber, natural fiber or a blend of both. Semi-finished woven electric blankets and throws consist of shells of woven fabric containing wire. Unassembled woven electric blankets and throws consist of a shell of woven fabric and one or more of the following components when packaged together or in a kit: (1) Wire; (2) controller(s). The shell of woven fabric consists of two sheets of fabric joined together forming a “shell.” The shell of woven fabric is manufactured to accommodate either the electric blanket's wiring or a subassembly containing the electric blanket's wiring (e.g., wiring mounted on a substrate).

    A shell of woven fabric that is not packaged together, or in a kit, with either wire, controller(s), or both, is not covered by this investigation even though the shell of woven fabric may be dedicated solely for use as a material in the production of woven electric blankets.

    The finished, semi-finished and unassembled woven electric blankets and throws subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheading 6301.10.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, only the written description of the scope is dispositive.

    Revocation

    Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), if no domestic interested party files a notice of intent to participate, the Department shall issue a final determination revoking the order within 90 days of the initiation of the review. Because no domestic interested party filed a timely notice of intent to participate in this sunset review, the Department finds that no domestic interested party is participating in this sunset review. Therefore, we are revoking the antidumping duty order on certain woven blankets from the PRC. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the effective date of revocation is August 18, 2015, the fifth anniversary of the order.7

    7See Order.

    Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) and 751(d)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the Department intends to issue instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to terminate the suspension of liquidation of and discontinue the collection of cash deposits on entries of the merchandise subject to the order which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 18, 2015. Entries of subject merchandise prior to August 18, 2015, will continue to be subject to the suspension of liquidation and requirements for deposits of estimated antidumping duties. The Department will conduct administrative reviews of the order with respect to subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation if it receives appropriately filed requests for review.

    These final results of this five-year (sunset) review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 11, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary, for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20393 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE107 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC) Scientific and Statistical Committee's (SSC) Scientific Uncertainty Subcommittee will hold a public meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, September 10, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Double Tree by Hilton Baltimore-BWI Airport, 890 Elkridge Landing Road, Linthicum, MD 21090; telephone: (410) 859-8400.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to conduct a peer review of a scientific analysis submitted to the SSC at its July 2015 meeting concerning the use of data limited methods to specify the overfishing limit and acceptable biological catch for the northern stock (Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to Maine) of black sea bass (Centropristis striata). Pending the results of this review, this information/analysis may be used by the SSC in setting catch limits for this species for the fishing years 2016-17.

    Special Accommodations

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

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20339 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Alaska Pacific Halibut & Sablefish Fisheries: Individual Fishing Quota Cost Recovery Program.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0398.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 2,184.

    Average Hours per Response: IFQ Registered Buyer Ex-vessel Value and Volume Report, 13 hours; IFQ Registered Buyer Ex-vessel Value and Volume Report, 2 hours if on paper, 5 minutes if online.

    Burden Hours: 240.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection. The purpose of the IFQ fee is to recover actual costs incurred in managing and enforcing the IFQ Program (75%) and to make funds available for Congress to appropriate for support of the North Pacific IFQ Loan Program (25%).

    An IFQ permit holder incurs a cost recovery fee liability for every pound of IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish that is landed under his or her IFQ permit(s). The IFQ permit holder is responsible for self-collecting the fee liability for all IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish landings on his or her permit(s). Fees must be collected at the time of a legal landing of halibut or sablefish, filing of a landing report, or sale of such fish during a fishing season or in the last quarter of the calendar year in which the fish is harvested.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20331 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE110 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Groundfish Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, 100 Boardman Street, Boston, MA 02128; Phone: (617) 567-6789; Fax: (617) 561-0798.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The items of discussion on the agenda are:

    The committee will discuss Framework Adjustment 55 (FW55): (a) Receive an update on the development of FW55/specifications and the addition of a sector, (b) receive an overview of the Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee Assessments for Eastern Georges Bank (EGB) cod, EGB Haddock and Georges Bank yellowtail flounder, (c) review analysis from the Groundfish Plan Development Team (PDT), (d) discuss recommendations to the Council. The committee will receive an update on the development of the At-Sea Monitoring Framework Adjustment and a review analysis from the PDT then discuss recommendations to the council. They will also receive an overview of the Amendment 18 (A18) Public Hearings and develop if necessary final recommendations to the council on preferred alternatives in A18. The committee also plans to discuss concerns raised by the recreational fishery regarding Gulf of Maine cod and haddock. Additionally, they will discuss enforcement concerns for the Groundfish Fishery on EGB in order to improve identification of the separator panel within the trawl net and discuss recommendations to the council. They will also discuss other business as necessary.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20341 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE117 Groundfish Operational Assessment Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS and the Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) will convene a peer review of Operational Stock Assessments of twenty fish stocks. These stocks are managed by the New England Fishery Management Council and are included within the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. This will be a formal, scientific peer review of operational assessments which incorporate recent data. Results of the review will be used as a basis for management decisions for fish stocks in U.S. waters of the northwest Atlantic. Assessments are prepared by stock assessment scientists primarily from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center and reviewed by a panel of stock assessment experts. The public is invited to attend the presentations and discussions by reviewers and scientists who have participated in the stock assessment process.

    DATES:

    The public portion of the Stock Assessment Review Committee Meeting will be held from September 14, 2015 through September 18, 2015. The meeting will commence on September 14, 2015 at 10 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Please see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the daily meeting agenda.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the S.H. Clark Conference Room in the Aquarium Building of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Sheena Steiner, 508-495-2177; email: [email protected]; or, James Weinberg, 508-495-2352; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For further information, please visit the NEFSC Web site at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/.

    Daily Meeting Agenda—Operational Assessments for 20 Groundfish Stocks * Monday, September 14 10-10:30 a.m. Welcome Introductions 10:30 a.m.-6 p.m. Gulf of Maine Cod Georges Bank Cod Gulf of Maine Haddock Tuesday, September 15 8:30 a.m.-6 p.m. Georges Bank Haddock Cape Cod/Gulf of Maine Yellowtail Flounder Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic Yellowtail Flounder Georges Bank Winter Flounder Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic Winter Flounder Wednesday, September 16 8:30 a.m.-6 p.m. Acadian Redfish American Plaice Witch Flounder White Hake Thursday, September 17 8:30 a.m.-6 p.m. Pollock Wolffish Atlantic Halibut Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank Windowpane Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic Windowpane Ocean Pout Gulf of Maine Winter Flounder Georges Bank Yellowtail Flounder Friday, September 18 9 a.m.-5 p.m.—Assessment Report Writing * Subject to Change Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Special requests should be directed to Sheena Steiner at the NEFSC, 508-495-2177, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20322 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE112 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will hold a two-day meeting of its Standing and Special Reef Fish Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC).

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday and Wednesday, September 1-2, 2015, starting at 1 p.m. on Tuesday and at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, and will end at approximately 3 p.m. on Wednesday.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hilton Westshore Tampa Airport Hotel, 2225 N. Lois Avenue, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 877-6688.

    Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steven Atran, Senior Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; [email protected], telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda

    The Chairman will start the meeting with introductions and adoption of the agenda, and will hold elections for a new chair and vice-chair. The Committee will then review and approve the minutes from the May 20, 2015 Standing and Special Reef Fish SSC meeting. The Committee will receive a report from the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) on the SEDAR 42 Red Grouper Benchmark Assessment. If the Committee accepts the assessment and sufficient information is available, the Committee will recommend overfishing limits (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) levels for red grouper. The Committee will discuss best practices for constant catch Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) projections, and will recommend a constant catch ABC for the west Florida shelf stock of hogfish based on analysis provided by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. The Committee will also receive a report from the SEFSC on the SEDAR 43 Gray Triggerfish Standard Assessment. If the Committee accepts the assessment and sufficient information is available, the Committee will recommend overfishing limits (OFL) and acceptable biological catch (ABC) levels for gray triggerfish. The Committee will review and discuss best practices for determining the number of years to provide Overfishing Limits (OFL) and ABC projections. They will review and approve the terms of reference for a review of an upcoming SEDAR 47 Goliath Grouper Standard Assessment, and will select two SSC members to participate as the Chair and Reviewer at the Review Workshop. The Committee will receive a report on Integrated Ecosystem Assessment and Management Strategy Evaluation as it pertains to single-species assessments. Finally, the Committee will review the SEDAR Assessment Schedule and tentative meeting dates for 2016 SSC meetings; and will discuss of Other Business, if any.

    Meeting Adjourns

    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on the Council's file server. To access the file server, the URL is https://public.gulfcouncil.org:5001/webman/index.cgi, or go to the Council's Web site and click on the FTP link in the lower left of the Council Web site (http://www.gulfcouncil.org). The username and password are both “gulfguest”. Click on the “Library Folder”, then scroll down to “SSC meeting-2015-09”.

    The meeting will be webcast over the internet. A link to the webcast will be available on the Council's Web site, http://www.gulfcouncil.org.

    Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Scientific and Statistical Committee for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Scientific and Statistical Committee will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda 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 Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20311 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE091 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Whiting Oversight Committee and Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 10 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Hampton Inn, 2100 Post Road, Warwick, RI 02886; telephone: (401) 739-8888; fax: (401) 739-1550.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Committee will review the 2015 Annual Monitoring Report produced by the Whiting Plan Development Team and a draft scoping document for Amendment 22 to develop limited access alternatives. Other business may be discussed if time permits.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20338 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE109 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Groundfish Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, 100 Boardman Street, Boston, MA 02128; phone: (617) 567-6789; fax: (617) 561-0798.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The items of discussion on the agenda are:

    The Advisory Panel plans to discuss Framework Adjustment 55 (FW55): (a) Receive an update on the development of FW55/specifications and the addition of a sector, (b) receive an overview of Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee Assessments for Eastern Georges Bank (EGB) cod, EGB Haddock and Georges Bank yellowtail flounder, (c) discuss recommendations for the Groundfish Committee. The panel will receive an update on the development of the At-Sea Monitoring Framework Adjustment and discuss recommendations to the Groundfish Committee. They will also receive and overview of the Amendment 18 (A18) Public Hearings and develop if necessary final recommendations to the Groundfish Committee on preferred alternatives in A18. Additionally, they will discuss enforcement concerns for the groundfish fishery on EGB in order to improve identification of the separator panel within the trawl net and discuss recommendations to the Groundfish Committee. They will also discuss other business as necessary.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20340 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE082 Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to review stock projections and consider fishing level recommendations for blueline tilefish.

    DATES:

    The SSC meeting will be held via webinar on Wednesday, September 9, 2015, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meetings will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact John Carmichael at the Council office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) to request an invitation providing webinar access information. Please request webinar invitations at least 24 hours in advance of the webinar.

    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Carmichael; 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is held to review yield and stock status projections for blueline tilefish, and consider fishing level recommendations. The SSC reviewed the SEDAR 32 blueline tilefish stock assessment in October 2013 and revised projections in April 2014 and June 2015. The SSC requested additional projections in June 2015; these will be reviewed at this meeting.

    Items to be addressed during this meeting:

    1. Blueline Tilefish Stock Projections 2. Blueline Tilefish Fishing Level Recommendations Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20337 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [CPSC Docket No. 15-C0006] Johnson Health Tech Co. Ltd. and Johnson Health Tech North America, Inc., Provisional Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement and Order AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    It is the policy of the Commission to publish settlements which it provisionally accepts under the Consumer Product Safety Act in the Federal Register in accordance with the terms of 16 CFR 1118.20(e). Published below is a provisionally-accepted Settlement Agreement with Johnson Health Tech Co. Ltd. and Johnson Health Tech North America, Inc. containing a civil penalty in the amount of three million dollars ($3,000,000), within thirty (30) days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Settlement Agreement.1

    1 The Commission voted (3-2) to provisionally accept the Settlement Agreement and Order regarding Johnson Health Tech Co., Ltd. and Johnson Health Tech North America, Inc. Chairman Kaye, Commissioner Adler and Commissioner Robinson voted to provisionally accept the Settlement Agreement and Order. Commissioner Buerkle and Commissioner Mohorovic voted to reject the Settlement Agreement and Order.

    DATES:

    Any interested person may ask the Commission not to accept this agreement or otherwise comment on its contents by filing a written request with the Office of the Secretary by September 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement should send written comments to the Comment 15-C0006 Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Room 820, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregory M. Reyes, Trial Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Division of Compliance, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408; telephone (301) 504-7220.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The text of the Agreement and Order appears below.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary. United States Of America Consumer Product Safety Commission In the Matter of: JOHNSON HEALTH TECH CO. LTD. and JOHNSON HEALTH TECH NORTH AMERICA, INC. CPSC Docket No.: 15-C0006 Settlement Agreement

    1. In accordance with the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2089 (“CPSA”) and 16 CFR 1118.20, Johnson Health Tech Co. Ltd. (“JHT”) and Johnson Health Tech North America, Inc. (“JHTNA”) (collectively, “Johnson Health Tech”), and the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”), through its staff, hereby enter into this Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement, and the incorporated attached Order, resolve staff's charges set forth below.

    The Parties

    2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency, established pursuant to, and responsible for the enforcement of, the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2089. By executing the Agreement, staff is acting on behalf of the Commission, pursuant to 16 CFR 1118.20(b). The Commission issues the Order under the provisions of the CPSA.

    3. JHT is a Taiwanese corporation with its principal office located at #999, Sec. 2, DongDa Rd., Ta-Ya Dist. Taichung City, 428, Taiwan.

    4. JHTNA is a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the state of Wisconsin, with its principal place of business in Cottage Grove, Wisconsin.

    Staff Charges

    5. Between September 2011 and December 2012, JHTNA imported and sold approximately 3,025 Matrix Fitness Ascent Trainers and Elliptical Trainers (“Trainers”) in the United States. JHT manufactured the Trainers.

    6. The Trainers are a “consumer product,” “distributed in commerce,” as those terms are defined or used in sections 3(a)(5) and (8) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(5) and (8). Johnson Health Tech was a “manufacturer” and “retailer” of the Trainers, as such terms are defined in sections 3(a)(11) and (13) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(11) and (13).

    7. The Trainers contain a defect which could create a substantial product hazard and create an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death because moisture from perspiration or cleaning liquids can build up in the Trainers' power socket, causing a short circuit. This poses a fire hazard.

    8. Between March 2012 and October 2013, Johnson Health Tech received incident reports of smoking, sparking, fire, and melted power components involving the Trainers. No property damage or injuries were reported.

    9. In response to these incident reports, Johnson Health Tech implemented two design changes to remedy the defect and unreasonable risk of serious injury or death associated with the Trainers.

    10. Despite having obtained information that the Trainers contained a defect or created an unreasonable risk, Johnson Health Tech did not notify the Commission immediately of such defect or risk, as required by sections 15(b)(3) and (4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(3) and (4).

    11. In failing to inform the Commission immediately about the Trainers, Johnson Health Tech knowingly violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4), as the term “knowingly” is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d).

    12. Pursuant to section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069, Johnson Health Tech is subject to civil penalties for its knowing violation of section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4).

    Response of Johnson Health Tech

    13. This agreement does not constitute an admission by Johnson Health Tech to the staff's charges set forth in paragraphs 5 through 12 above, including, but not limited to, the charge that the Trainers contained a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death; that Johnson Health Tech failed to notify the Commission in a timely manner, in accordance with Section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b); and that there was any “knowing” violation of the CPSA as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C. 2069(d).

    14. Johnson Health Tech enters into this Agreement to settle this matter without the delay and expense of litigation. Johnson Health Tech enters into this Agreement and agrees to pay the amount referenced below in compromise of the staff's charges.

    15. JHTNA voluntarily notified the Commission in connection with the Trainers. JHTNA is not aware of any report of injury or property damage associated with the Trainers and reported issue but carried out a voluntary recall in cooperation with the Commission.

    16. At all relevant times, JHTNA had a product safety compliance program, including dedicated quality control/product safety personnel and appropriate product safety testing.

    Agreement of the Parties

    17. Under the CPSA, the Commission has jurisdiction over the matter involving the Trainers and over JHTNA. JHT has agreed to a limited waiver of jurisdictional defenses solely for the purpose of entering into this Settlement Agreement.

    18. The parties enter into the Agreement for settlement purposes only. The Agreement does not constitute an admission by Johnson Health Tech or a determination by the Commission that Johnson Health Tech violated the CPSA's reporting requirements.

    19. In settlement of staff's charges, and to avoid the cost, distraction, delay, uncertainty, and inconvenience of protracted litigation or other proceedings, Johnson Health Tech shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of three million dollars ($3,000,000) within thirty (30) calendar days after receiving service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Agreement. All payments to be made under the Agreement shall constitute debts owing to the United States and shall be made by electronic wire transfer to the United States via: http://www.pay.gov for allocation to and credit against the payment obligations of Johnson Health Tech under this Agreement. Failure to make such payment by the date specified in the Commission's final Order shall constitute Default.

    20. All unpaid amounts, if any, due and owing under the Agreement shall constitute a debt due and immediately owing by Johnson Health Tech to the United States, and interest shall accrue and be paid by Johnson Health Tech at the federal legal rate of interest set forth at 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and (b) from the date of Default until all amounts due have been paid in full (hereinafter “Default Payment Amount” and “Default Interest Balance”). Johnson Health Tech shall consent to a Consent Judgment in the amount of the Default Payment Amount and Default Interest Balance, and the United States, at its sole option, may collect the entire Default Payment Amount and Default Interest Balance or exercise any other rights granted by law or in equity, including but not limited to referring such matters for private collection, and Johnson Health Tech agrees not to contest, and hereby waives and discharges any defenses to, any collection action undertaken by the United States or its agents or contractors pursuant to this paragraph. Johnson Health Tech shall pay the United States all reasonable costs of collection and enforcement under this paragraph, respectively, including reasonable attorney's fees and expenses.

    21. After staff receives this Agreement executed on behalf of Johnson Health Tech, staff shall promptly submit the Agreement to the Commission for provisional acceptance. Promptly following provisional acceptance of the Agreement by the Commission, the Agreement shall be placed on the public record and published in the Federal Register, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 16 CFR 1118.20(e). If the Commission does not receive any written request not to accept the Agreement within fifteen (15) calendar days, the Agreement shall be deemed finally accepted on the 16th calendar day after the date the Agreement is published in the Federal Register, in accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20(f).

    22. This Agreement is conditioned upon, and subject to, the Commission's final acceptance, as set forth above, and it is subject to the provisions of 16 CFR 1118.20(h). Upon the later of: (i) Commission's final acceptance of this Agreement and service of the accepted Agreement upon Johnson Health Tech, and (ii) the date of issuance of the final Order, this Agreement shall be in full force and effect and shall be binding upon the parties.

    23. Effective upon the later of: (i) The Commission's final acceptance of the Agreement and service of the accepted Agreement upon Johnson Health Tech, and (ii) and the date of issuance of the final Order, for good and valuable consideration, Johnson Health Tech hereby expressly and irrevocably waives and agrees not to assert any past, present, or future rights to the following, in connection with the matter described in this Agreement: (i) An administrative or judicial hearing; (ii) judicial review or other challenge or contest of the Commission's actions; (iii) a determination by the Commission of whether Johnson Health Tech failed to comply with the CPSA and the underlying regulations; (iv) a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (v) any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

    24. JHTNA has, and shall maintain, a program designed to ensure compliance with the CPSA with respect to any consumer product imported, manufactured, distributed, or sold by JHTNA. This program contains, or will be modified to include, the following elements:

    a. written standards and policies; b. written procedures that provide for the appropriate forwarding to compliance personnel and the product hazard incident review committee of all information that may relate to, or impact, CPSA compliance including all reports and complaints involving consumer products, whether an injury is referenced or not; c. a mechanism for confidential employee reporting of compliance-related questions or concerns to either a compliance officer or to another senior manager with authority to act as necessary; d. effective communication of company compliance-related policies and procedures regarding the CPSA to all applicable employees through training programs or otherwise; e. JHTNA senior management responsibility for CPSA compliance and for violations of the statutes and regulations enforced by the Commission; f. board oversight of CPSA compliance; and g. retention of all CPSA compliance-related records for at least five (5) years, and availability of such records to staff upon reasonable request.

    25. JHTNA shall implement, maintain, and enforce a system of internal controls and procedures designed to ensure that, with respect to all consumer products imported, manufactured, distributed, or sold by JHTNA:

    a. information required to be disclosed by JHTNA to the Commission is recorded, processed, and reported in accordance with applicable law; b. all reporting made to the Commission is timely, truthful, complete, accurate, and in accordance with applicable law; and c. prompt disclosure is made to JHTNA's management of any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or operation of such internal controls that are reasonably likely to affect adversely, in any material respect, JHTNA's ability to record, process, and report to the Commission in accordance with applicable law.

    26. Upon reasonable request of staff, JHTNA shall provide written documentation of its internal controls and procedures, including, but not limited to, the effective dates of the procedures and improvements thereto. JHTNA shall cooperate fully and truthfully with staff and shall make available all non-privileged information and materials, and personnel deemed necessary by staff to evaluate JHTNA's compliance with the terms of the Agreement.

    27. The parties acknowledge and agree that the Commission may publicize the terms of the Agreement and the Order.

    28. Johnson Health Tech represents that the Agreement: (i) Is entered into freely and voluntarily, without any degree of duress or compulsion whatsoever; (ii) has been duly authorized; and (iii) constitutes the valid and binding obligation of Johnson Health Tech, enforceable against Johnson Health Tech in accordance with its terms. Johnson Health Tech will not directly or indirectly receive any reimbursement, indemnification, insurance-related payment, or other payment in connection with the civil penalty to be paid by Johnson Health Tech pursuant to the Agreement and Order. The individuals signing the Agreement on behalf of Johnson Health Tech represent and warrant that they are duly authorized by Johnson Health Tech to execute the Agreement.

    29. The signatories represent that they are authorized to execute this Agreement.

    30. The Agreement is governed by the laws of the United States.

    31. The Agreement and the Order shall apply to, and be binding upon, Johnson Health Tech and each of its successors, transferees, and assigns, and a violation of the Agreement or Order may subject Johnson Health Tech, and each of its successors, transferees, and assigns, to appropriate legal action.

    32. The Agreement and the Order constitute the complete agreement between the parties on the subject matter contained therein.

    33. The Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Understandings, agreements, representations, or interpretations apart from those contained in the Agreement and the Order may not be used to vary or contradict their terms. For purposes of construction, the Agreement shall be deemed to have been drafted by both of the parties and shall not, therefore, be construed against any party for that reason in any subsequent dispute.

    34. The Agreement may not be waived, amended, modified, or otherwise altered, except as in accordance with the provisions of 16 CFR 1118.20(h). The Agreement may be executed in counterparts.

    35. If any provision of the Agreement or the Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the terms of the Agreement and the Order, such provision shall be fully severable. The balance of the Agreement and the Order shall remain in full force and effect, unless the Commission and Johnson Health Tech agree in writing that severing the provision materially affects the purpose of the Agreement and the Order.

    Johnson Health Tech Co. LTD. Dated: July 31, 2015 By: Jason Lo Chief Executive Officer Johnson Health Tech Co. Ltd. #999, Sec. 2, DongDa Rd., Ta-Ya Dist. Taichung City, 428, Taiwan Johnson Health Tech North America, Inc. Dated: July 31, 2015 By: Nathan Pyles President Johnson Health Tech North America, Inc. 1600 Landmark Drive Cottage Grove, WI 53527 Dated: July 29, 2015 By: Matthew R. Howsare Counsel to Johnson Health Tech North America, Inc. Mintz Levin 701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20004 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Stephanie Tsacoumis General Counsel Mary T. Boyle Deputy General Counsel Mary B. Murphy Assistant General Counsel Dated: July 31, 2015 By: Gregory M. Reyes Trial Attorney Division of Compliance Office of the General Counsel United States of America Consumer Product Safety Commission In the Matter of: Johnson Health Tech Co. LTD. and Johnson Health Tech North America, Inc. CPSC Docket No.: 15-C0006 Order

    Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between Johnson Health Tech Co. Ltd. and Johnson Health Tech North America, Inc. (“Johnson Health Tech”), and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”), and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over Johnson Health Tech, and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement and the Order are in the public interest, it is:

    ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement be, and is, hereby, accepted; and it is

    FURTHER ORDERED that Johnson Health Tech shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of three million dollars ($3,000,000) within thirty (30) days after service of the Commission's final Order accepting the Settlement Agreement. The payment shall be made by electronic wire transfer to the Commission via: http://www.pay.gov. Upon the failure of Johnson Health Tech to make the foregoing payment when due, interest on the unpaid amount shall accrue and be paid by Johnson Health Tech at the federal legal rate of interest set forth at 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and (b). If Johnson Health Tech fails to make such payment or to comply in full with any other provision of the Settlement Agreement, such conduct will be considered a violation of the Settlement Agreement and Order.

    Provisionally accepted and provisional Order issued on the 13th day of August, 2015. By Order of the Commission: Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
    [FR Doc. 2015-20332 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary National Commission on the Future of the Army; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DoD), Deputy Chief Management Officer.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The DoD is publishing this notice to announce two days of meetings of the National Commission on the Future of the Army (“the Commission”). The meetings will be partially closed to the public.

    DATES:

    Date of the Closed Meetings: Monday, August 24, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:25 a.m. and Monday, August 24 2015, from 12:25 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Date of the Open Meeting: Tuesday, August 25, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Address of Closed Meeting, August 24, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:25 a.m.: Operations Group Conference Room, Building 990, National Training Center, Fort Irwin, CA 92310.

    Address of Closed Meeting, August 24, 2015 from 12:25 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.: Operations Group Conference Room, Building 990, National Training Center, Fort Irwin, CA 92310.

    Address of Open Meeting, August 25, 2015: Long Beach Marriott Conference Room, Long Beach Marriott, 4700 Airport Plaza Drive, Long Beach, CA 90815.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Don Tison, Designated Federal Officer, National Commission on the Future of the Army, 700 Army Pentagon, Room 3E406, Washington, DC 20310-0700, Email: [email protected] Desk (703) 692-9099. Facsimile (703) 697-8242.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, the National Commission on the Future of the Army was unable to provide public notification of its meeting of August 24-25, 2015, as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement. This meeting will be held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    Purpose of Meetings

    During the closed meeting on Monday, August 24, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:25 a.m., the Commission will hear classified testimony from individual witnesses, and engage in discussion on Evaluation metrics in relation to Unit Status Reporting Data and Observations of Training and Evaluation at the National Training Center (NTC).

    During the closed meeting on Monday, August 24, 2015, from 12:25 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., the Commission will hear classified testimony from individual witnesses, and engage in discussions on an Assessment of Unit Training and performance.

    During the open meeting on Tuesday, August 25, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., the Commission will hear updates from the Subcommittee chairs, a recap of the NTC engagement from the day prior and verbal comments from the Public.

    Agendas

    August 24, 2015, 9:00 a.m. to 11:25 a.m.—Closed Hearing: The Commission will hear comments on Evaluation metrics in relation to Unit Status Reporting, Readiness Status of units training at Ft. Irwin in preparation for deployment, and the applicability and correlation of training scenarios at Ft. Irwin as related to OPLANs of deploying units.

    Speakers include, but are not limited to: Commanding General Ft. Irwin, NTC Training and Evaluation Cadre. All presentations and resulting discussion are classified.

    August 24, 2015, 12:25 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.—Closed Hearing: The Commission will hear comments on Assessment by NTC Cadre of participating units' readiness, resourcing needs for units rotating through the NTC and needs of NTC resident units and personnel to support their training and evaluation mission. Additionally, representatives from the Army National Guard rotational units will comment on Home station training preparation and results achieved.

    Speakers include, but are not limited to NTC Training and Evaluation Cadre, and ARNG Senior Leaders from participating States. All presentations and resulting discussion are classified.

    August 25, 2015—Open Hearing: The Commission will hear updates from subcommittee chairs and recap the previous day's NTC engagement. The public will have the opportunity to make verbal comments.

    Meeting Accessibility

    In accordance with applicable law, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the DoD has determined that the two meetings scheduled for Monday, August 24, 2015, between 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. will be closed to the public. Specifically, the Assistant Deputy Chief Management Officer, with the coordination of the DoD FACA Attorney, has determined in writing that these portions of the meeting will be closed to the public because they will discuss matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1).

    Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and the availability of space, the meeting scheduled for August 25, 2015 from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. at the Long Beach Marriott Conference Room is open to the public. Seating is limited and pre-registration is strongly encouraged. Media representatives are also encouraged to register. Members of the media must comply with the rules of photography and video filming published by Marriot Inc. The closest public parking facility is located on the property. Visitors will be required to present one form of photograph identification. Visitors should keep their belongings with them at all times.

    Written Comments

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(3) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Commission in response to the stated agenda of the open and/or closed meeting or the Commission's mission. The Designated Federal Officer (DFO) will review all submitted written statements. Written comments should be submitted to Mr. Donald Tison, DFO, via facsimile or electronic mail, the preferred modes of submission. Each page of the comment must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. All comments received before Friday, August 21, 2015, will be provided to the Commission before the August 25, 2015, meeting. Comments received after Friday, August 21, 2015, will be provided to the Commission before its next meeting. All contact information may be found in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Oral Comments

    In addition to written statements, one hour will be reserved for individuals or interest groups to address the Commission on August 25, 2015. Those interested in presenting oral comments to the Commission must summarize their oral statement in writing and submit with their registration. The Commission's staff will assign time to oral commenters at the meeting; no more than five minutes each for individuals. While requests to make an oral presentation to the Commission will be honored on a first come, first served basis, other opportunities for oral comments will be provided at future meetings.

    Registration

    Individuals and entities who wish to attend the public hearing and meeting on Tuesday, August 25, 2015 are encouraged to register for the event with the DFO using the electronic mail and facsimile contact information found in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The communication should include the registrant's full name, title, affiliation or employer, email address, day time phone number. This information will assist the Commission in contacting individuals should it decide to do so at a later date. If applicable, include written comments and a request to speak during the oral comment session. (Oral comment requests must be accompanied by a summary of your presentation.) Registrations and written comments should be typed.

    Additional Information

    The DoD sponsor for the Commission is the Deputy Chief Management Officer. The Commission is tasked to submit a report, containing a comprehensive study and recommendations, by February 1, 2016 to the President of the United States and the Congressional defense committees. The report will contain a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the Commission, together with its recommendations for such legislation and administrative actions it may consider appropriate in light of the results of the study. The comprehensive study of the structure of the Army will determine whether, and how, the structure should be modified to best fulfill current and anticipated mission requirements for the Army in a manner consistent with available resources.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20362 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the charter for the Defense Policy Board (“the Board”).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This committee's charter is being renewed in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(a).

    The Board is a discretionary Federal advisory committee that, through the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)), provides the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, independent, informed advice and opinions concerning matters of defense policy in response to specific tasks from the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the USD(P). Specifically, the Board focuses on issues central to strategic DoD planning; policy implications of U.S. force structure and force modernization on DoD's ability to execute U.S. defense strategy; U.S. regional defense policies; and any other topics raised by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the USD(P).

    The DoD, through the Office of the USD(P), shall provide support for the Board's performance and shall ensure compliance with the requirements of the FACA, the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (“the Sunshine Act”) (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), governing Federal statutes and regulations, and established DoD policies and procedures.

    The Board shall be composed of no more than 35 members who have distinguished backgrounds in defense and national security affairs.

    Board members appointed by the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of Defense, who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal employees, shall be appointed as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109 to serve as special government employee (SGE) members. Board members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees will be appointed pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.130(a) to serve as regular government employee (RGE) members. Board members shall serve a term of service of one-to-four years on the Board, subject to annual renewals. No member may serve more than two consecutive terms of service without Secretary of Defense or Deputy Secretary of Defense approval.

    The Secretary of Defense has approved the appointment of the Chairs of the Defense Business Board and the Defense Science Board to serve as non-voting ex-officio members of the Board, whose appointments shall not count toward the Board's total membership.

    The Chair will be appointed by the Secretary of Defense or in accordance with DoD policy from among those Board members previously appointed by the Secretary of Defense and permitted to vote.

    With the exception of reimbursement of official Board-related travel and per diem, members of the Board serve without compensation.

    The USD(P), pursuant to DoD policies and procedures and as deemed necessary, may appoint, non-voting subject matter experts (SMEs) to assist the Board or its subcommittees on an ad hoc basis. These non-voting SMEs are not members of the Board or its subcommittees and will not engage or participate in any deliberations by the Board or its subcommittees. These non-voting SMEs, if not full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees, will be appointed as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109 to serve on an intermittent basis to address specific issues under consideration by the Board.

    DoD, when necessary and consistent with the Board's mission and DoD policies and procedures, may establish subcommittees, task forces, or working groups to support the Board. Establishment of subcommittees will be based upon a written determination, to include terms of reference, by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the USD(P), as the DoD Sponsor.

    Such subcommittees shall not work independently of the Board and shall report all of their recommendations and advice solely to the Board for full and open deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees, task forces, or working groups have no authority to make decisions and recommendations, verbally or in writing, on behalf of the Board. No subcommittee or any of its members can update or report, verbally or in writing, on behalf of the Board, directly to the DoD or any Federal officer or employee.

    Each subcommittee member, based upon his or her individual professional experience, provides his or her best judgment on the matters before the Board, and he or she does so in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. All subcommittee members will be appointed by the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of Defense for a term of service of one-to-four years, with annual renewals, even if the individual in question is already a member of the Board. Subcommittee members will not serve more than two consecutive terms of service, unless authorized by the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

    Subcommittee members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees will be appointed as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109 to serve as SGE members. Subcommittee members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees will be appointed pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.130(a) to serve as RGE members. With the exception of reimbursement of official travel and per diem related to the Board or its subcommittees, subcommittee members will serve without compensation.

    All subcommittees operate under the provisions of FACA, the Sunshine Act, governing Federal statutes and regulations, and established DoD policies and procedures.

    The Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) must be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD officer or employee, appointed in accordance with established DoD policies and procedures. The Board's DFO is required to attend at all meetings of the Board and its subcommittees for the entire duration of each and every meeting. However, in the absence of the Board's DFO, a properly approved Alternate DFO, duly appointed to the Board according to established DoD policies and procedures, must attend the entire duration of all meetings of the Board and its subcommittees.

    The DFO, or the Alternate DFO, calls all meetings of the Board and its subcommittees; prepares and approves all meeting agendas; and adjourns any meeting when the DFO, or the Alternate DFO, determines adjournment to be in the public interest or required by governing regulations or DoD policies and procedures.

    Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to Board membership about the Board's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Board.

    All written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the Board, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Board's DFO can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—http://www.facadatabase.gov/.

    The DFO, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, will announce planned meetings of the Board. The DFO, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20293 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Meeting of the U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Partially Closed Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors will meet to make such inquiry, as the Board shall deem necessary, into the state of morale and discipline, the curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, and academic methods of the Naval Academy. The executive session of this meeting from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on September 28, 2015, will include discussions of new and pending administrative/minor disciplinary infractions and non-judicial punishment proceedings involving Midshipmen attending the Naval Academy to include but not limited to individual honor/conduct violations within the Brigade; the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. For this reason, the executive session of this meeting will be closed to the public.

    DATES:

    The open session of the meeting will be held on September 28, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. The executive session held from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. will be the closed portion of the meeting.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Library of Congress in Washington, DC. The meeting will be handicap accessible.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lieutenant Commander Eric Madonia, USN, Executive Secretary to the Board of Visitors, Office of the Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402-5000, (410) 293-1503.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice of meeting is provided per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.). The executive session of the meeting from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on September 28, 2015, will consist of discussions of new and pending administrative/minor disciplinary infractions and non-judicial punishments involving midshipmen attending the Naval Academy to include but not limited to, individual honor/conduct violations within the Brigade. The discussion of such information cannot be adequately segregated from other topics, which precludes opening the executive session of this meeting to the public. Accordingly, the Department of the Navy/Assistant for Administration has determined in writing that the meeting shall be partially closed to the public because the discussions during the executive session from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. will be concerned with matters protected under sections 552b(c) (5), (6), and (7) of title 5, United States Code.

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: July 11, 2015. N.A. Hagerty-Ford Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20376 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Science; Department of Energy; Notice of Renewal of the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel

    Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, App. 2, and section 102-3.65, title 41, Code of Federal Regulations and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel has been renewed for a two-year period.

    The Panel will provide advice to the Director, Office of Science (DOE), and the Assistant Director, Mathematical & Physical Sciences Directorate (NSF), on long-range planning and priorities in the national high-energy physics program. The Secretary of Energy has determined that renewal of the Panel is essential to conduct business of the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation and is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed by law upon the Department of Energy.

    The Panel will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the General Services Administration Final Rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, and other directives and instructions issued in implementation of those acts.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Kogut at (301) 903-1298.

    Issued in Washington DC on August 12, 2015. Erica De Vos, Acting Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20354 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0068, 2014-0730, 2015-0081, 2015-0491; FRL-9929-31] Availability of Work Plan Chemical Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment and Data Needs Assessment Documents for Flame Retardant Clusters; Notice and Public Comment Periods AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is announcing the availability and opening of a 60-day public comment period for TSCA Work Plan Chemical problem formulation and initial assessment documents for three flame retardant clusters. EPA is also making available and opening a 120-day public comment period for the TSCA Work Plan Chemical data needs assessment document for the Brominated Phthalates flame retardant cluster. Based on experience in conducting TSCA Work Plan Chemical assessments and public input, starting in 2015 EPA will publish a problem formulation and initial assessment, or a data needs assessment, for each TSCA Work Plan assessment as a stand-alone document to facilitate public input prior to conducting further risk analysis. EPA believes publishing problem formulation and initial assessment documents for TSCA Work Plan assessments will increase transparency about EPA's thinking and analysis process, provide opportunity for the public to comment on EPA's approach, and give EPA the opportunity to receive additional information/data prior to EPA conducting detailed risk analysis and risk characterization. There are three clusters of flame retardant on the TSCA Work Plan for which there are problem formulation and initial assessment documents: Brominated Bisphenol A, Chlorinated Phosphate Esters, and Cyclic Aliphatic Bromides. In addition, there is a data needs assessment document for the Brominated Phthalates flame retardant cluster. There is a separate docket assigned to each TSCA Work Plan Chemical flame retardant cluster.

    DATES:

    Comments on the three problem formulation and initial assessment documents (Brominated Bisphenol A (TBBPA), Chlorinated Phosphate Esters (CPE), and Cyclic Aliphatic Bromides (HBCD)) must be received on or before October 19, 2015. Comments on the data needs assessment document for Brominated Phthalates (TBB & TBPH) must be received on or before December 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number for the corresponding TSCA Work Plan chemicals as identified in this document, by one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Stanley Barone, Risk Assessment Division (7403M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-1169; email address: [email protected]

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including those interested in environmental and human health; the chemical industry; chemical users; consumer product companies and members of the public interested in the assessment of chemical risks. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing the availability of and opening of a public comment period for three problem formulation and initial assessment documents, and a data needs assessment document, for the following TSCA Work Plan Chemicals: Brominated Bisphenol A; Chlorinated Phosphate Esters; Cyclic Aliphatic Bromides; and Brominated Phthalates flame retardant clusters. This Federal Register Notice identifies the individual Work Plan Chemical problem formulation and initial assessment documents and the data needs assessment document by title, docket ID number, and chemical or chemicals covered. Use the specific docket ID number provided in this Federal Register Notice to locate a copy of the chemical-specific document, as well as to submit comments via http://www.regulations.gov.

    A. Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0068

    Title: TSCA Work Plan Chemical Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment: Chlorinated Phosphate Esters Cluster.

    Chemicals covered: Ethanol, 2-chloro-, phosphate (3:1) (TCEP) (CASRN: 115-96-8); 2-Propanol, 1-chloro-, 2,2',2”-phosphate (TCPP) (CASRN: 13674-84-5); and 2-Propanol, 1,3-dichloro-, phosphate (3:1) (TDCPP) (CASRN: 13674-87-8).

    Summary: Chlorinated phosphate esters are high production volume chemicals that have been used as flame retardants in furniture foams, textiles, paints and coatings. EPA initiated scoping and problem formulation to determine the feasibility of conducting a quantitative risk assessment. During problem formulation, EPA reviewed previous assessments by EPA and other organizations and additional published studies on the exposure and hazard for members of the CPE cluster. EPA examined likely exposure and hazard scenarios based on current production, use, and fate information to identify scenarios amenable to a risk analysis.

    B. Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0081

    Title: TSCA Work Plan Chemical Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment: Cyclic Aliphatic Bromides Cluster.

    Chemicals covered: Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD, CASRN 25637-99-4); 1,2,5,6,9,10-Hexabromocyclododecane (CASRN 3194-55-6); and 1,2,5,6-Tetrabromocyclooctane (CASRN 3194-57-8).

    Summary: Cyclic Aliphatic Bromides have been used as a flame retardant in: extruded and expanded polystyrene foams (EPS/XPS), polystyrene (PS) products, textiles, paints and coatings. EPA initiated scoping and problem formulation to determine the feasibility of conducting a quantitative risk assessment. During problem formulation, EPA reviewed previous assessments by EPA and other organizations and additional published studies on the exposure and hazard for members of this flame retardant cluster. EPA examined likely exposure and hazard scenarios based on current production, use, and fate information to identify scenarios amenable to a risk analysis. During problem formulation, EPA identified inhalation, dermal and lifetime exposure assessments as data gaps that add uncertainty to EPA's risk assessment of HBCD. EPA welcomes comment on addressing these data gaps.

    C. Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0730

    Title: TSCA Work Plan Chemical Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment: Tetrabromobisphenol A and Related Chemicals Cluster.

    Chemicals covered: Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA, CASRN 79-94-7); TBBPA-bis(dibromopropyl ether) (CASRN 21850-44-2); TBBPA-bis(ally ether) (CASRN 25327-89-3); and TBBPA-bis(methyl ether) (CASRN 37853-61-5).

    Summary: Tetrabromobisphenol A is a compound commonly used as a flame retardant in plastics/printed circuit boards for electronics and has been found in children's products and other consumer products. EPA initiated scoping and problem formulation to determine the feasibility of conducting a quantitative risk assessment. During problem formulation, EPA reviewed previous assessments by EPA and other organizations and additional published studies on the exposure and hazard for members of this flame retardant cluster. EPA examined likely exposure and hazard scenarios based on current production, use, and fate information to identify scenarios amenable to a risk analysis.

    D. Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0491

    Title: TSCA Work Plan Chemical Problem Formulation and Data Needs Assessment: Brominated Phthalates Cluster.

    Chemicals covered: 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 3,4,5,6-tetrabromo-, 1,2-bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester (TBPH) (CASRN 26040-51-7); Benzoic acid, 2,3,4,5-tetrabromo-, 2-ethylhexyl ester (TBB) (CASRN: 183658-27-7); 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 3,4,5,6-tetrabromo-, 1-[2-(2-hydroxyethoxy)ethyl] 2-(2-hydroxypropyl) ester (CASRN: 20566-35-2); 1,2-Benzene dicarboxylic acid, 3,4,5,6-tetrabromo-, mixed esters with diethylene glycol and propylene glycol (CASRN: 77098-07-8); 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,2-bis(2,3-dibromopropyl) ester (CASRN: 7415-86-3); Chemical A—Chemical Identity claimed confidential by manufacturer; Chemical B—Chemical Identity claimed confidential by manufacturer.

    Summary: The Brominated Phthalates Cluster is a group of seven chemicals at least two of which, TBB and TBPH, are found in commercial flame retardant formulations. During problem formulation, EPA reviewed previous assessments by EPA and other organizations and additional published studies on the exposure and hazard for members of the Brominated Phthalates Cluster. This review identified critical data gaps and uncertainties that limit EPA's ability to conduct a quantitative risk assessment for any of the chemicals in the Brominated Phthalates cluster. Specifically, the review identified numerous gaps in toxicity data and exposure data, testing conducted on limited commercial mixtures but not all constituents of the mixtures, and uncertain attribution of toxicity for commercial mixtures. As an initial step toward conducting a robust risk assessment, EPA is releasing a “Data Needs Assessment” for the Brominated Phthalates Cluster. This Data Needs Assessment is intended to guide the collection of additional data and information to fill the critical data gaps and reduce uncertainties identified during problem formulation.

    If you have any questions about any of these problem formulation and initial assessment documents and the data needs assessment document, or the Agency's programs in general, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Wendy C. Hamnett, Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20370 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board).

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection to be submitted to OMB for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) (collectively, the agencies) may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    On May 6, 2015, the Board, under the auspices of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) and on behalf of the agencies, published a notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 26050) requesting public comment on the extension, without revision, of the Report of Assets and Liabilities of U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks (FFIEC 002), the Report of Assets and Liabilities of a Non-U.S. Branch that is Managed or Controlled by a U.S. Branch or Agency of a Foreign (Non-U.S.) Bank (FFIEC 002S), and the Country Exposure Report for U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks (FFIEC 019), which are currently approved information collections. The comment period for this notice expired on July 6, 2015. The agencies received one comment expressing support for the renewal of the FFIEC 002 and FFIEC 002S. The Board hereby gives notice that it plans to submit to OMB on behalf of the agencies a request for approval of the extension, without revision, of the FFIEC 002, FFIEC 002S, and FFIEC 019.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before September 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the agency listed below. All comments will be shared among the agencies. You may submit comments, identified by FFIEC 002, FFIEC 002S, or FFIEC 019, by any of the following methods:

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

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

    Email: [email protected] Include the OMB control numbers in the subject line of the message.

    FAX: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.

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

    All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper form in Room 3515, 1801 K Street NW. (between 18th and 19th Streets NW.), Washington, DC 20006, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.

    Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB desk officer for the agencies by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by fax to (202) 395-6974; or by email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Additional information or a copy of the collections may be requested from Nuha Elmaghrabi, Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer, (202) 452-3829, Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may call (202) 263-4869.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposal to request approval from OMB of the extension for three years, without revision, of the following reports:

    1. Report titles: Report of Assets and Liabilities of U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks; Report of Assets and Liabilities of a Non-U.S. Branch that is Managed or Controlled by a U.S. Branch or Agency of a Foreign (Non-U.S.) Bank.

    Agency form numbers: FFIEC 002; FFIEC 002S.

    OMB control number: 7100-0032.

    Frequency of response: Quarterly.

    Affected public: U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks.

    Number of respondents: FFIEC 002—223; FFIEC 002S—49.

    Estimated average time per response: FFIEC 002—25.43 hours; FFIEC 002S—6.0 hours.

    Estimated total annual burden: FFIEC 002—22,684 hours; FFIEC 002S—1,176 hours.

    General description of reports: These information collections are mandatory (12 U.S.C. 3105(c)(2), 1817(a)(1) and (3), and 3102(b)). Except for select sensitive items, the FFIEC 002 is not given confidential treatment; the FFIEC 002S is given confidential treatment (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and (8)).

    Abstract: On a quarterly basis, all U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks are required to file the FFIEC 002, which is a detailed report of condition with a variety of supporting schedules. This information is used to fulfill the supervisory and regulatory requirements of the International Banking Act of 1978. The data are also used to augment the bank credit, loan, and deposit information needed for monetary policy and other public policy purposes. The FFIEC 002S is a supplement to the FFIEC 002 that collects information on assets and liabilities of any non-U.S. branch that is managed or controlled by a U.S. branch or agency of the foreign bank. Managed or controlled means that a majority of the responsibility for business decisions, including but not limited to decisions with regard to lending or asset management or funding or liability management, or the responsibility for recordkeeping in respect of assets or liabilities for that foreign branch, resides at the U.S. branch or agency. A separate FFIEC 002S must be completed for each managed or controlled non-U.S. branch. The FFIEC 002S must be filed quarterly along with the U.S. branch or agency's FFIEC 002. The data from both reports are used for (1) monitoring deposit and credit transactions of U.S. residents; (2) monitoring the impact of policy changes; (3) analyzing structural issues concerning foreign bank activity in U.S. markets; (4) understanding flows of banking funds and indebtedness of developing countries in connection with data collected by the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements that are used in economic analysis; and (5) assisting in the supervision of U.S. offices of foreign banks. The Federal Reserve System collects and processes these reports on behalf of all three agencies. No changes were proposed to the FFIEC 002 and FFIEC 002S reporting forms or instructions.

    2. Report title: Country Exposure Report for U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks.

    Agency form number: FFIEC 019.

    OMB control number: 7100-0213.

    Frequency of response: Quarterly.

    Affected public: U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks.

    Number of respondents: 167.

    Estimated average time per response: 10 hours.

    Estimated total annual burden: 6,680 hours.

    General description of reports: This information collection is mandatory (12 U.S.C. 3906 for all agencies); 12 U.S.C. 3105 and 3108 for the Board; 12 U.S.C. 1817 and 1820 for the FDIC; and 12 U.S.C. 161 for the OCC. This information collection is given confidential treatment under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)).

    Abstract: All individual U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks that have more than $30 million in direct claims on residents of foreign countries must file the FFIEC 019 report quarterly. Currently, all respondents report adjusted exposure amounts to the five largest countries having at least $20 million in total adjusted exposure. The agencies collect this data to monitor the extent to which such branches and agencies are pursuing prudent country risk diversification policies and limiting potential liquidity pressures. No changes were proposed to the FFIEC 019 reporting form or instructions.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 12, 2015. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20275 Filed 8-17-15; 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 September 2, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:

    1. Robert G. Lowe, Fort Myers, Florida; to acquire voting shares of Palmetto Heritage Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Palmetto Heritage Bank & Trust, both in Pawleys Island, South Carolina.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 13, 2015. Margaret McCloskey Shanks, Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20321 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed changes to the currently approved information collection project: “Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Household Component and the MEPS Medical Provider Component.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.

    This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on September 20, 2015 and allowed 60 days for public comment. AHRQ received no substantive comments. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by September 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by email at [email protected] (attention: AHRQ's desk officer).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at [email protected]

    Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposed Project Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Household Component (HC)

    For over thirty years, results from the MEPS and its predecessor surveys (the 1977 National Medical Care Expenditure Survey, the 1980 National Medical Care Utilization and Expenditure Survey and the 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey) have been used by OMB, DHHS, Congress and a wide number of health services researchers to analyze health care use, expenses and health policy.

    Major changes continue to take place in the health care delivery system. The MEPS is needed to provide information about the current state of the health care system as well as to track changes over time. The MEPS permits annual estimates of use of health care and expenditures and sources of payment for that health care. It also permits tracking individual change in employment, income, health insurance and health status over two years. The use of the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) as a sampling frame expands the MEPS analytic capacity by providing another data point for comparisons over time.

    Households selected for participation in the MEPS-HC are interviewed five times in person. These rounds of interviewing are spaced about 5 months apart. The interview will take place with a family respondent who will report for him or herself and for other family members.

    The goal of MEPS-HC is to provide nationally representative estimates for the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population for health care use, expenditures, sources of payment and health insurance coverage.

    Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Medical Provider Component (MPC)

    The MEPS-MPC will contact medical providers (hospitals, physicians, home health agencies and institutions) identified by household respondents in the MEPS-HC as sources of medical care for the time period covered by the interview, and all pharmacies providing prescription drugs to household members during the covered time period. The MEPS-MPC is not designed to yield national estimates as a stand-alone survey. The sample is designed to target the types of individuals and providers for whom household reported expenditure data was expected to be insufficient. For example, Medicaid enrollees are targeted for inclusion in the MEPS-MPC because this group is expected to have limited information about payments for their medical care.

    There is one addition to the MEPS-MPC being implemented in this renewal request, the MEPS MPC Medical Organizations Survey (MOS). The MEPS MOS will expand current MPC data collection activities to include information on the organization of the practices of office-based care providers identified as a usual source of care in the MEPS MPC. This additional data collection will be for a subset of office-based care providers already included in the MEPS MPC sample. In the MEPS MPC sample, for a nationally representative sample of adults, primary location for individual's office-based usual sources of care will be identified. The MEPS MPC will contact these places where medical care is provided, determine the appropriate respondent and administer a MEPS MOS. The design of the survey will be multimodal including some telephone contact. Additional data collection methods may include phone, fax, mail, self administration, electronic transmission, and the Web. The data collection method chosen for a provider shall be the method that results in the most complete and accurate data with least burden to the provider.

    The MEPS-MPC collects event level data about medical care received by sampled persons during the relevant time period. The data collected from medical providers include:

    • Dates on which medical encounters during the reference period occurred.

    • Data on the medical content of each encounter, including ICD-9 (or ICD-10) and CPT-4 codes.

    • Data on the charges associated with each encounter, the sources paying for the medical care, including the patient/family, public sources, and private insurance, and amounts paid by each source.

    Data collected from pharmacies include:

    • Date of prescription fill • National drug code (NDC) or prescription name, strength and form • Quantity • Payments, by source

    The MEPS-MPC has the following goal:

    • To serve as an imputation source for and to supplement/replace household reported expenditure and source of payment information. This data will supplement, replace and verify information provided by household respondents about the charges, payments, and sources of payment associated with specific health care encounters.

    This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractors, Westat and RTI International, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the cost and use of health care services and with respect to health statistics and surveys. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(3) and (8); 42 U.S.C. 299b-2.

    Method of Collection

    To achieve the goals of the MEPS-HC the following data collections are implemented:

    1. Household Component Core Instrument. The core instrument collects data about persons in sample households. Topical areas asked in each round of interviewing include condition enumeration, health status, health care utilization including prescribed medicines, expense and payment, employment, and health insurance. Other topical areas that are asked only once a year include access to care, income, assets, satisfaction with health plans and providers, children's health, and adult preventive care. While many of the questions are asked about the entire reporting unit (RU), which is typically a family, only one person normally provides this information. All sections of the current core instrument are available on the AHRQ Web site at http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/survey_comp/survey_questionnaires.jsp.

    2. Adult Self-Administered Questionnaire. A brief self-administered questionnaire will be used to collect self-reported (rather than through household proxy) information on health status, health opinions and satisfaction with health care for adults 18 and older (see http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/survey_comp/survey.jsp#supplemental). The satisfaction with health care items are a subset of items from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®). The health status items are from the Short Form 12 Version 2 (SF-12 version 2), which has been widely used as a measure of self-reported health status in the United States, the Kessler Index (K6) of non-specific psychological distress, and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2). This questionnaire is unchanged from the previous OMB clearance.

    3. Diabetes Care Self-Administered Questionnaire. A brief self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire on the quality of diabetes care is administered once a year (during round 3 and 5) to persons identified as having diabetes. Included are questions about the number of times the respondent reported having a hemoglobin A1c blood test, whether the respondent reported having his or her feet checked for sores or irritations, whether the respondent reported having an eye exam in which the pupils were dilated, the last time the respondent had his or her blood cholesterol checked and whether the diabetes has caused kidney or eye problems. Respondents are also asked if their diabetes is being treated with diet, oral medications or insulin. This questionnaire is unchanged from the previous OMB clearance. See http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/survey_comp/survey.jsp#supplemental.

    4. Authorization forms for the MEPS-MPC Provider and Pharmacy Survey. As in previous panels of the MEPS, we will ask respondents for authorization to obtain supplemental information from their medical providers (hospitals, physicians, home health agencies and institutions) and pharmacies. See http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/survey_comp/survey.jsp#MPC_AF for the pharmacy and provider authorization forms.

    5. MEPS Validation Interview. Each interviewer is required to have at least 15 percent of his/her caseload validated to insure that computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI) questionnaire content was asked appropriately and procedures followed, for example the use of show cards. Validation flags are set programmatically for cases pre-selected by data processing staff before each round of interviewing. Home office and field management may also request that other cases be validated throughout the field period. When an interviewer fails a validation all their work is subject to 100 percent validation. Additionally, any case completed in less than 30 minutes is validated. A validation abstract form containing selected data collected in the CAPI interview is generated and used by the validator to guide the validation interview.

    To achieve the goal of the MEPS-MPC the following data collections are implemented:

    1. MPC Contact Guide/Screening Call. An initial screening call is placed to determine the type of facility, whether the practice or facility is in scope for the MEPS-MPC, the appropriate MEPS-MPC respondent and some details about the organization and availability of medical records and billing at the practice/facility. All hospitals, physician offices, home health agencies, institutions and pharmacies are screened by telephone. A unique screening instrument is used for each of these seven provider types in the MEPS-MPC, except for the two home care provider types which use the same screening form; see http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/survey_comp/survey.jsp#MPC_CG.

    2. Home Care Provider Questionnaire for Health Care Providers. This questionnaire is used to collect data from home health care agencies which provide medical care services to household respondents. Information collected includes type of personnel providing care, hours or visits provided per month, and the charges and payments for services received. See http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/survey_comp/survey.jsp#MPC.

    3. Home Care Provider Questionnaire for Non-Health Care Providers. This questionnaire is used to collect information about services provided in the home by non-health care workers to household respondents because of a medical condition; for example, cleaning or yard work, transportation, shopping, or child care. See http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/survey_comp/survey.jsp#MPC.

    4. Medical Event Questionnaire for Office-Based Providers. This questionnaire is for office-based physicians, including doctors of medicine (MDs) and osteopathy (DOs), as well as providers practicing under the direction or supervision of an MD or DO (e.g., physician assistants and nurse practitioners working in clinics). Providers of care in private offices as well as HMOs are included. See http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/survey_comp/survey.jsp#MPC.

    5. Medical Event Questionnaire for Separately Billing Doctors. This questionnaire collects information from physicians identified by hospitals (during the Hospital Event data collection) as providing care to sampled persons during the course of inpatient, outpatient department or emergency room care, but who bill separately from the hospital. See http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/survey_comp/survey.jsp#MPC.

    6. Hospital Event Questionnaire. This questionnaire is used to collect information about hospital events, including inpatient stays, outpatient department, and emergency room visits. Hospital data are collected not only from the billing department, but from medical records and administrative records departments as well. Medical records departments are contacted to determine the names of all the doctors who treated the patient during a stay or visit. In many cases, the hospital administrative office also has to be contacted to determine whether the doctors identified by medical records billed separately from the hospital itself; the doctors that do bill separately from the hospital will be contacted as part of the Medical Event Questionnaire for Separately Billing Doctors. HMOs are included in this provider type. See http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/survey_comp/survey.jsp#MPC.

    7. Institution Event Questionnaire. This questionnaire is used to collect information about institution events, including nursing homes, rehabilitation facilities and skilled nursing facilities. Institution data are collected not only from the billing department, but from medical records and administrative records departments as well. Medical records departments are contacted to determine the names of all the doctors who treated the patient during a stay. In many cases, the institution administrative office also has to be contacted to determine whether the doctors identified by medical records billed separately from the institution itself. See http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/survey_comp/survey.jsp#MPC).

    8. Pharmacy Data Collection Questionnaire. This questionnaire requests the national drug code (NDC) and when that is not available the prescription name, date prescription was filled, payments by source, prescription strength and form (when the NDC is not available), quantity, and person for whom the prescription was filled. When the NDC is available, we do not ask for prescription name, strength or form because that information is embedded in the NDC; this reduces burden on the respondent. Most pharmacies have the requested information available in electronic format and respond by providing a computer-generated printout of the patient's prescription information. If the computerized form is unavailable, the pharmacy can report their data to a telephone interviewer. Pharmacies are also able to provide a CD-ROM with the requested information if that is preferred. HMOs are included in this provider type. See http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/survey_comp/survey.jsp#MPC.

    9. Medical Organizations Survey Questionnaire. This questionnaire will collect essential information on important features of the staffing, organization, policies, and financing for identified usual source of office based care providers. This additional data collection will be a subset of office based care providers already included in the MEPS MPC sample and will be a nationally representative sample of adults' primary location for individuals office based usual sources of care.

    Dentists, optometrists, psychologists, podiatrists, chiropractors, and others not providing care under the supervision of a MD or DO are considered out of scope for the MEPS-MPC.

    The MEPS is a multi-purpose survey. In addition to collecting data to yield annual estimates for a variety of measures related to health care use and expenditures, MEPS also provides estimates of measures related to health status, consumer assessment of health care, health insurance coverage, demographic characteristics, employment and access to health care indicators. Estimates can be provided for individuals, families and population subgroups of interest. Data obtained in this study are used to provide, among others, the following national estimates:

    • Annual estimates of health care use and expenditures for persons and families • Annual estimates of sources of payment for health care utilizations, including public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, private insurance, and out of pocket payments • Annual estimates of health care use, expenditures and sources of payment of persons and families by type of utilization including inpatient stay, ambulatory care, home health, dental care and prescribed medications • The number and characteristics of the population eligible for public programs including the use of services and expenditures of the population(s) eligible for benefits under Medicare and Medicaid • The number, characteristics, and use of services and expenditures of persons and families with various forms of insurance • Annual estimates of consumer satisfaction with health care, and indicators of health care quality for key conditions • Annual estimates to track disparities in health care use and access

    In addition to national estimates, data collected in this ongoing, longitudinal study are used to study the determinants of the use of services and expenditures, and changes in the access to and the provision of health care in relation to:

    • Socio-economic and demographic factors such as employment or income • The health status and satisfaction with health care of individuals and families • The health needs and circumstances of specific subpopulation groups such as the elderly and children

    To meet the need for national data on health care use, access, cost and quality, MEPS-HC collects information on:

    • Access to care and barriers to receiving needed care • Satisfaction with usual providers • Health status and limitations in activities • Medical conditions for which health care was used • Use, expense and payment (as well as insurance status of person receiving care) for health services

    Given the twin problems of the lack of response and response error of some household reported data, information is collected directly from medical providers in the MEPS-MPC to improve the accuracy of expenditure estimates derived from the MEPS-HC. Because of their greater level of precision and detail, we also use MEPS-MPC data as the main source of imputations of missing expenditure data. Thus, the MEPS-MPC is designed to satisfy the following analytical objectives:

    • Serve as source data for household reported events with missing expenditure information • Serve as an imputation source to reduce the level of bias in survey estimates of medical expenditures due to item nonresponse and less complete and less accurate household data • Serve as the primary data source for expenditure estimates of medical care provided by separately billing doctors in hospitals, emergency rooms, and outpatient departments, Medicaid recipients and expenditure estimates for pharmacies • Allow for an examination of the level of agreement in reported expenditures from household respondents and medical providers

    Data from the MEPS, both the HC and MPC components, are intended for a number of annual reports produced by AHRQ, including the National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report.

    The MEPS MPC MOS data will be used to create a database that will be unique in providing an internally consistent source of information both on individuals' characteristics and health care utilization and expenditures, and on the characteristics of the providers they use. The following areas will be addressed in the MOS as they potentially affect individuals' access to, use of and affordability of health care services:

    • Organizational characteristics, e.g., size, specialties covered, practice rules and procedures, patient mix and scope of care provided, membership in an ACO, certification as a primary care medical home • Use of health information technology • Policies and practices related to the Affordable Care Act • Financial arrangements, e.g., reimbursement methods, number and types of insurance contracts, compensation arrangements within the practice Estimated Annual Respondent Burden

    Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in the MEPS-HC and the MEPS-MPC. The MEPS-HC Core Interview will be completed by 15,093* (see note below Exhibit 1) “family level” respondents, also referred to as RU respondents. Since the MEPS-HC consists of 5 rounds of interviewing covering a full two years of data, the annual average number of responses per respondent is 2.5 responses per year. The MEPS-HC core requires an average time of 92 minutes to administer. The Adult SAQ will be completed once a year by each person in the RU that is 18 years old and older, an estimated 28,254 persons. The Adult SAQ requires an average of 7 minutes to complete. The Diabetes care SAQ will be completed once a year by each person in the RU identified as having diabetes, an estimated 2,345 persons, and takes about 3 minutes to complete. The authorization form for the MEPS-MPC Provider Survey will be completed once for each medical provider seen by any RU member. The 14,489 RUs in the MEPS-HC will complete an average of 5.4 forms, which require about 3 minutes each to complete. The authorization form for the MEPS-MPC Pharmacy Survey will be completed once for each pharmacy for any RU member who has obtained a prescription medication. RUs will complete an average of 3.1 forms, which take about 3 minutes to complete. About one third of all interviewed RUs will complete a validation interview as part of the MEPS-HC quality control, which takes an average of 5 minutes to complete. The total annual burden hours for the MEPS-HC are estimated to be 67,826 hours.

    All medical providers and pharmacies included in the MEPS-MPC will receive a screening call and the MEPS-MPC uses 7 different questionnaires; 6 for medical providers and 1 for pharmacies. Each questionnaire is relatively short and requires 2 to 15 minutes to complete. The total annual burden hours for the MEPS-MPC are estimated to be 18,876 hours. The total annual burden for the MEPS-HC and MPC is estimated to be 86,702 hours.

    Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annual cost burden associated with the respondents' time to participate in this information collection. The annual cost burden for the MEPS-HC is estimated to be $1,540,328; the annual cost burden for the MEPS-MPC is estimated to be $302,985. The total annual cost burden for the MEPS-HC and MPC is estimated to be $1,843,313.

    Exhibit 1—Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • MEPS-HC MEPS-HC Core Interview * 15,093 2.5 92/60 57,857 Adult SAQ 28,254 1 7/60 3,296 Diabetes care SAQ 2,345 1 3/60 117 Authorization form for the MEPS-MPC Provider Survey 14,489 5.4 3/60 3,912 Authorization form for the MEPS-MPC Pharmacy Survey 14,489 3.1 3/60 2,246 MEPS-HC Validation Interview 4,781 1 5/60 398 Subtotal for the MEPS-HC 79,451 na na 67,826 MEPS-MPC/MOS MPC Contact Guide/Screening Call ** 35,222 1 2/60 1,174 Home care for health care providers questionnaire 532 1.49 9/60 119 Home care for non-health care providers questionnaire 25 1 11/60 5 Office-based providers questionnaire 11,785 1.44 10/60 2,828 Separately billing doctors questionnaire 12,693 3.43 13/60 9,433 Hospitals questionnaire 5,077 3.51 9/60 2,673 Institutions (non-hospital) questionnaire 117 2.03 9/60 36 Pharmacies questionnaire 4,993 4.44 3/60 1,108 Medical Organizations Survey questionnaire 6,000 1 15/60 1,500 Subtotal for the MEPS-MPC 76,444 na na 18,876 Grand Total 155,895 na na 86,702 * While the expected number of responding units for the annual estimates is 14,489, it is necessary to adjust for survey attrition of initial respondents by a factor of 0.96 (15,093 = 14,489/0.96). ** There are 6 different contact guides; one for office based, separately billing doctor, hospital, institution, and pharmacy provider types, and the two home care provider types use the same contact guide.
    Exhibit 2—Estimated Annualized Cost Burden Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • Average
  • hourly wage
  • rate
  • Total cost
  • burden
  • MEPS-HC MEPS-HC Core Interview 15,093 57,857 * $22.71 $1,313,932 Adult SAQ 28,254 3,296 * 22.71 74,852 Diabetes care SAQ 2,345 117 * 22.71 2,657 Authorization forms for the MEPS-MPC Provider Survey 14,489 3,912 * 22.71 88,842 Authorization form for the MEPS-MPC Pharmacy Survey 14,489 2,246 * 22.71 51,007 MEPS-HC Validation Interview 4,781 398 * 22.71 9,039 Subtotal for the MEPS-HC 79,451 67,826 na 1,540,328 MEPS-MPC/MOS MPC Contact Guide/Screening Call 35,222 1,174 ** 16.12 18,925 Home care for health care providers questionnaire 532 119 ** 16.12 1,918 Home care for non-health care providers questionnaire 25 5 ** 16.12 81 Office-based providers questionnaire 11,785 2,828 ** 16.12 45,587 Separately billing doctors questionnaire 12,693 9,433 ** 16.12 152,060 Hospitals questionnaire 5,077 2,673 ** 16.12 43,089 Institutions (non-hospital) questionnaire 117 36 ** 16.12 580 Pharmacies questionnaire 4,993 1,108 *** 14.95 16,565 Medical Organizations Survey questionnaire 6,000 1,500 ** 16.12 24,180 Subtotal for the MEPS-MPC 76,444 18,876 na 302,985 Grand Total 155,895 86,073 na 1,843,313 * Mean hourly wage for All Occupations (00-0000). ** Mean hourly wage for Medical Secretaries (43-6013). *** Mean hourly wage for Pharmacy Technicians (29-2052). Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2014 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#b29-0000.
    Request for Comments

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20358 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “Pilot Test of the Proposed Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture Version 2.0.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.

    This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on May 7, 2015 and allowed 60 days for public comment. AHRQ received one comment of substance. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by September 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by email at [email protected] (attention: AHRQ's desk officer).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pilot Test of the Proposed Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture Version 2.0 Proposed Project

    In 2004, AHRQ developed and published a measurement tool to assess the culture of patient safety in hospitals (OMB control no. 0935-0115). The Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS) is a survey of providers and staff that can be implemented by hospitals to identify strengths and areas for patient safety culture improvement as well as raise awareness about patient safety. When conducted routinely, the survey can be used to examine trends in patient safety culture over time and evaluate the cultural impact of patient safety initiatives and interventions. The data can also be used to make comparisons across hospital units. AHRQ also produced a survey user's guide to assist hospitals in conducting the survey successfully. The guide addresses issues such as which providers and staff should complete the survey, how to select a sample of hospital providers and staff, how to administer the questionnaire, and how to analyze and report on the resulting data.

    Since 2004, thousands of hospitals within the U.S. and internationally have implemented the survey. In response to requests for comparative data from other hospitals, AHRQ funded the development of a comparative database on the survey in 2006 (OMB control no. 0935-0162). The database is currently compiled every two years, using the latest data provided by participating hospitals (and retaining submitted data for no more than 2 years). Reports describing the findings from analysis of the database are made available on the AHRQ Web site to assist hospitals in comparing their results. The 2014 database contains data from 405,281 hospital provider and staff respondents within 653 participating hospitals. The 2014 User Comparative Database Report presents results by hospital characteristics (e.g., number of beds, teaching status, geographic location) and respondent characteristics (e.g., position type, work area/unit).

    The survey constructed in 2004 remains in use today, more than 10 years after its initial launch. Since the launch of HSOPS, AHRQ has funded development of patient safety culture surveys for other settings. In 2008, surveys were published for outpatient medical offices (OMB control no. 0935-0131) and nursing homes (OMB control no. 0935-0132). In 2012, a survey for community pharmacies (OMB control no. 0935-0183) was released. Surveys for each setting built upon the strengths of HSOPS but improved and updated items where appropriate.

    Users of HSOPS have provided feedback over the years suggesting that changes to the instrument would be valuable and welcomed. The comparative database registrants provided feedback about potential changes in 2013, and telephone interviews were conducted with 8 current survey users and vendors to gain an in-depth understanding of their thoughts on the current survey and possible changes. As a result of this feedback, the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture Version 2.0 (HSOPS 2.0) is being constructed with the following 8 objectives in mind.

    (1) Shift to a Just Culture framework for understanding responses to errors. In the original HSOPS, questions around responses to errors were negatively worded to detect a “culture of blame” in organizations. For example, respondents evaluated the extent to which errors were held against them and whether it felt as though the person was being written up rather than the problem. In contrast, a Just Culture framework emphasizes learning from mistakes, providing a safe environment for reporting errors, and utilizing a balanced approach to errors that considers both system and individual behavioral reasons as causes for errors. New items will be constructed in HSOPS 2.0 to capture the extent to which positive responses to error consistent with a Just Culture framework are present in an organization. For example, respondents will be asked to evaluate the extent to which the organization tries to understand the factors that lead to patient safety errors.

    (2) Reduce the number of negatively worded items. The original HSOPS had negatively worded items. For example, respondents are asked whether there are “patient safety problems in this unit” (negatively worded). Using some negatively worded items was intended to reduce social desirability and acquiescence biases and identify individuals not giving the survey their full attention (e.g., “straight-lining,” or providing the same answer for every item, regardless of positive or negative wording). However, many users have indicated that respondents sometimes had difficultly correctly interpreting and responding to the negatively worded items. Therefore, many survey users recommended that the number of negatively worded items should be reduced, but they did not recommend removing all of these items as they felt a mixture of items helps keep respondents engaged.

    (3) Add a “Does not apply/Don't know” response option. Analysis of the Comparative Database data found that a percentage of respondents selects “neither agree nor disagree” on many items when they really should have answered “Does not apply/Don't know”. While some portion of respondents will always have neutral feelings about a statement, in some cases a respondent will select a neutral response to an item because they do not have experience in that area or the item does not apply to their position. Addition of a “does not apply/don't know” response option should reduce neutral responses to an item in cases where the item is not relevant for a respondent, providing more statistical variability in responses. Recognizing these issues, the other AHRQ Surveys on Patient Safety Culture all have a fifth “Does not apply/Don't know” response option.

    (4) Reword unclear or difficult-to-translate items. HSOPS was originally designed for use in U.S. hospitals, but it has since been translated into languages other than English. Some HSOPS items use idiomatic expressions that do not translate well, such as “things fall between the cracks” and “the person is being written up.” Other items have words that are complex or may mean different things to different people, such as “sacrifice” and “overlook.” HSOPS 2.0 uses more universal phrases which can be accurately translated and have more consistent meaning across respondents, some of whom are non-clinical staff. A related change across many items is use of the word “we” rather than “staff.” It may be unclear to respondents whether providers such as physicians, residents, and interns qualify as “staff,” while “we” invites a more inclusive view of those in the hospital or unit.

    (5) Reword items to be more applicable to physicians and non-clinical staff. Users have indicated that the wording of some of the items makes it awkward for physicians to answer. For example, the section that asks about “Your Supervisor/Manager” does not apply well to physicians who report to a clinical leader but not to a manager per se. In addition, some items were difficult for non-clinical staff to answer. For example, the item “We have patient safety problems in this unit” may not be relevant for staff, who do not have direct interaction with patients (e.g., IT staff).

    (6) Align the HSOPS survey with AHRQ patient safety culture surveys for other settings. The development of patient safety culture surveys for other settings provided opportunities to test new items and refinements of original HSOPS items. Many of these items have performed well for other settings and are relevant to the hospital setting. In addition, standardizing items across the patient safety culture surveys would allow cross-setting comparisons that are not currently possible.

    (7) Reduce survey length. To increase response rates and reduce the survey administration burden for hospitals, the revised survey is intended to be shorter than the original instrument. Some of the original items have relatively low variability and therefore contribute little to discrimination between positive and negative assessment of patient safety culture. However, the need for careful testing of alternative questions means that the initial draft of the revised or 2.0 survey is slightly longer than the original. Through cognitive interviewing, pilot testing, and expert review, we will identify items that can be deleted, resulting in a shorter final instrument.

    (8) Investigate supplemental items/composites. Develop a set of supplemental items for the HSOPS 2.0 survey pertaining to Health Information Technology (Health IT).

    Further details about the specific changes by composite and at the item level can be found on the AHRQ Web site at: http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/patientsafetyculture/hospital/update/index.html.

    The draft 2.0 version of the instrument has undergone preliminary cognitive testing with 9 hospital physicians and staff members as well as review by a Technical Expert Panel (TEP).

    This research has the following goals:

    (1) Test cognitively with individual respondents the items in a) the draft HSOPS 2.0 survey and b) HSOPS 2.0 supplemental item set assessing Health IT Patient Safety. Cognitive testing will be conducted in English and Spanish.

    (2) Conduct data collection as follows:

    a. A combined pilot test and bridge study for the draft HSOPS 2.0 in 40 hospitals and modify the questionnaire as necessary. The pilot test component will entail administering the draft 2.0 version to determine which items to retain. The bridge study component will entail administering the original HSOPS in addition to the draft HSOPS 2.0 version to provide guidance to hospitals in understanding changes in their scores resulting from the new instrument versus changes resulting from true changes in culture.

    b. The pilot testing of the supplemental item set will be conducted with the same hospitals and respondents as the pilot test for the draft HSOPS 2.0. These supplemental items will be added to the draft HSOPS 2.0 survey for pilot testing.

    (3) Engage a TEP in review of pilot results and finalize the questionnaire and supplemental item set.

    (4) Make the final HSOPS 2.0 survey and the supplemental items publicly available.

    This work is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Westat, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2).

    Method of Collection

    Cognitive interviews—The purpose of these interviews is to understand the cognitive processes respondents engage in when answering each item on the survey, which will aid in refining the survey instrument. These interviews will be conducted with a mix of hospital personnel, including physicians, nurses, and other types of staff (from dietitians to housekeepers).

    Draft HSOPS 2.0—Cognitive interviews have already been conducted with 9 respondents to inform development of the current draft HSOPS 2.0. Up to three additional rounds of interviews will be conducted by telephone with a total of 27 respondents (nine respondents each round). The instrument will be translated into Spanish and another round of cognitive interviews will be conducted with nine Spanish-speaking respondents for a total of up to 36 respondents across all four rounds. A cognitive interview guide will be used for all rounds.

    Supplemental Items—Up to three rounds of interviews will be conducted by telephone for a total of 27 respondents (nine respondents each round). The supplemental items will be translated into Spanish and another round of cognitive interviews will be conducted with nine Spanish-speaking respondents for a total of up to 36 respondents across all four rounds. A cognitive interview guide will be used for all rounds.

    (1) Feedback obtained from the first round of interviews for the draft HSOPS 2.0 and the supplemental items will be used to refine the items. The results of Round 1 testing, along with the proposed revisions, will be reviewed with a TEP prior to commencing with Rounds 2 and/or 3 testing. In total, up to 72 cognitive interviews will be conducted to refine the draft HSOPS 2.0 and supplemental items for pilot testing.

    (2) Pilot test and bridge study—There will be one data collection effort which will provide data for the pilot test and the bridge study. The pilot test of the draft HSOPS 2.0 and supplemental items will allow the assessment of the psychometric properties of the items and composites. We will assess the variability, reliability, factor structure and construct validity of the draft HSOPS 2.0 and supplemental items and composites, allowing for their further refinement. The draft HSOPS 2.0 survey and supplemental items will be pilot tested with hospital personnel in approximately 40 hospitals to facilitate multilevel analysis of the data. Approximately 500 providers and staff will be sampled from each hospital, with 250 receiving HSOPS 2.0 with supplemental items for the pilot test and 250 receiving the original HSOPS for the bridge study comparisons. A hospital point of contact will be recruited in each hospital to publicize the survey and assemble a list of sampled providers and staff. Providers and staff will receive notification of the survey and reminders via email and the web-based survey will be fielded entirely online.

    The goal of the bridge study will be to provide users with guidance on how their new results will compare with results from the original HSOPS survey. Although users have requested that the HSOPS survey be revised, they are also concerned about their ability to trend results with data from prior years. Fielding a bridge study is not unprecedented. For example, a similar bridge study was conducted during the 1994 redesign of the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey (CPS). In the CPS bridge study, an additional 12,000 households were added to the survey's monthly rotation schedule between July 1992 and December 1993. The added households received the redesigned version of the instrument. Thus, the CPS fielded both the revised and the original versions of the instrument simultaneously. One of the most important results of the CPS bridge study was the development of metrics that allowed estimates of change that were due to the changes in the instrument. These metrics were used to adjust the estimates produced by the revised CPS instrument. As a result of the study, key labor force metrics such as the unemployment rate could be trended accurately after the instrument's redesign.

    We propose to conduct a similarly constructed bridge study in which sampled providers and staff take either the draft HSOPS 2.0 or original versions of HSOPS. As noted above, a split ballot design will be used in which half of sampled providers and staff in each hospital receive the original HSOPS (N=250) and the other half receive the draft HSOPS 2.0 (N=250). This bridge study is designed to produce metrics of change that are attributable to the changed survey instrument. The number of hospitals and sampled providers and staff for this data collection effort was calculated to ensure the statistical power needed to detect relatively small differences in scores (3 percentage points).

    (3) TEP feedback—A TEP has been assembled to provide input to guide patient safety culture survey product development and has been convened to discuss the proposed changes to the HSOPS survey and supplemental items. Upon completion of the pilot test, results will be reviewed with the TEP and the survey will be finalized. This TEP activity does not impose a burden on the public and is therefore not included in the burden estimates in Exhibits 1 and 2.

    (4) Dissemination activities—The final HSOPS 2.0 instrument and supplemental items will be made publicly available through the AHRQ Web site. A report from the bridge study will also be made public as a resource to hospitals making the transition to the new survey. This dissemination activity does not impose a burden on the public and is therefore not included in the burden estimates in Exhibits 1 and 2.

    Estimated Annual Respondent Burden

    Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the participants' time to take part in this research. Cognitive interviews for the draft HSOPS 2.0 will be conducted with 36 individuals and will take about one hour and 30 minutes to complete. Cognitive interviews for the supplemental items will be conducted with 36 individuals and take about one hour to complete. We will recruit 40 hospitals for the pilot test and bridge study, sampling approximately 500 staff members in each (250 taking the original survey and 250 taking the HSOPS 2.0 and supplemental item set). Because we require such a large sample within each hospital, we will target only hospitals with 49 or more beds. For hospitals with fewer than 500 providers and staff, we will conduct a census in the hospital (assuming on average 375 providers and staff in these hospitals this will yield a total of 18,375 sample members assuming all 40 hospitals participate. Assuming a response rate of 50 percent, this will yield a total of 9,188 completed questionnaires. The total annualized burden is estimated to be 2,387 hours.

    Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the participants' time to take part in this research. The total cost burden is estimated to be $83,533.26.

    Exhibit 1—Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form name/activity Number of

  • respondents
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total
  • burden
  • hours
  • Cognitive interviews—HSOPS 2.0 36 1.5 54 Cognitive interviews—Supplemental Items 36 1.0 36 Pilot test and bridge study 9,188 0.25 2,297 Total 9,260 na 2,387 Exhibit 2—Estimated Annualized Cost Burden Form name/activity Total burden hours Average hourly
  • wage rate *
  • Total cost
  • burden
  • Cognitive interviews (HSOPS 2.0 and supplemental items) 90 a $35.38 $3,184.20 Pilot test and bridge study 2,297 b 34.98 80,349.06 Total 2,387 na 83,533.26 a Based on the weighted average hourly wage in hospitals for one physician (29-1060; $101.53), one registered nurse (29-1141; $30.22), one general and operations manager (11-1021; $52.64), and six clinical lab techs (29-2010; $22.34) whose hourly wage is meant to represent wages for other hospital employees who may participate in cognitive interviews b Based on the weighted average hourly wage in hospitals for 1,981 registered nurses, 209 clinical lab techs, 176 physicians and surgeons, and 21 general and operations managers * National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May 2013, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_621100.htm [for general medical and surgical hospitals, NAICS 622100]).
    Request for Comments

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20359 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-D-0920] Select Updates for Non-Clinical Engineering Tests and Recommended Labeling for Intravascular Stents and Associated Delivery Systems; 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 “Select Updates for Non-Clinical Engineering Tests and Recommended Labeling for Intravascular Stents and Associated Delivery Systems.” FDA has developed this guidance to inform the coronary and peripheral stent industry about selected updates to FDA's thinking regarding certain non-clinical testing for these devices. While FDA is considering more substantial updates to the “Non-Clinical Engineering Tests and Recommended Labeling for Intravascular Stents and Associated Delivery Systems” guidance (http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm071863.htm), we are issuing this update on select sections in order to notify the industry in a timely manner of our revised recommendations.

    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 “Select Updates for Non-Clinical Engineering Tests and Recommended Labeling for Intravascular Stents and Associated Delivery Systems” 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:

    Katharine Chowdhury, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 66, Rm. 1222, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6344, or Erica Takai, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 62, Rm. 3226, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6353.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA held a public workshop entitled “Cardiovascular Metallic Implants: Corrosion, Surface Characterization, and Nickel Leaching” on March 8 and 9, 2012, that provided information on current practices for performing these tests (see http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/ucm287535.htm). A group of participants from industry, test facilities, and academia provided comments on practices for corrosion testing and nickel ion release testing. Based on the discussion at the workshop, this guidance updates a key aspect of sample conditioning for pitting corrosion testing that is less burdensome, and includes additional information on when galvanic corrosion testing may be omitted with justification, based on information gained from the workshop. This guidance provides updates only for the following topics:

    • Pitting corrosion potential • Galvanic corrosion • Surface characterization • Nickel ion release

    This guidance provides cross-references and updates to the related sections of the existing “Non-Clinical Engineering Tests and Recommended Labeling for Intravascular Stents and Associated Delivery Systems” guidance.

    In the Federal Register on August 30, 2013 (78 FR 53773), FDA announced the availability of the draft guidance document. Interested persons were invited to comment by September 30, 2013. Four sets of comments were received and, in general, were supportive of the guidance. There were multiple comments regarding the need for clarification of acceptance criteria and the desire for a flow chart to visualize the overall testing paradigm described in the guidance update. In response to these comments, FDA revised the guidance document to include more specific information on acceptance criteria for pitting corrosion and surface oxide properties, as well as a flow chart. General concerns were noted that the guidance modifications might be interpreted to be more burdensome. However, the addition of the flowchart is intended to clarify when testing beyond pitting corrosion testing should be considered, and based on prior experience, it is anticipated that few stents will need further assessment. In addition, there were several comments regarding the lack of utility of post-fatigue pitting corrosion assessment. In response to these comments, as well as discussions at the March 2012 workshop, FDA has removed the suggestion to consider post-fatigue pitting corrosion testing when damage to samples is noted due to fatigue testing. There was also a comment that the 60-day suggested duration for nickel release may be unnecessarily long and burdensome, and in response, FDA has reduced the minimum duration to 30 days if the release rate falls below a predetermined level based on toxicological risk assessment.

    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 certain non-clinical testing for coronary and peripheral stents. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the 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 “Select Updates for Non-Clinical Engineering Tests and Recommended Labeling for Intravascular Stents and Associated Delivery Systems ” may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1826 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft 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. 2015-20308 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-D-0640] Uncomplicated Gonorrhea: Developing Drugs for Treatment; 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 guidance for industry entitled “Uncomplicated Gonorrhea: Developing Drugs for Treatment.” The purpose of this guidance is to assist sponsors in the clinical development of drugs for the treatment of uncomplicated gonorrhea. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance of the same name issued on June 19, 2014.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of this 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 guidance document.

    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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Maria Allende or Joseph Toerner, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6244, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1400.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Uncomplicated Gonorrhea: Developing Drugs for Treatment.” The purpose of this guidance is to assist sponsors in the development of drugs for the treatment of uncomplicated gonorrhea.

    This guidance describes approaches for trial designs for the evaluation of new drugs for the treatment of uncomplicated gonorrhea. The guidance focuses on the noninferiority trial design and describes an efficacy endpoint for which there is a well-defined treatment effect. The guidance also provides the justification for the noninferiority margin. After careful consideration of comments received in response to the draft guidance issued on June 19, 2014 (79 FR 35172), we added a brief discussion of the potential for pregnant women to be included in specific populations for drug development. In addition, this guidance reflects recent developments in scientific information that pertain to drugs being developed for the treatment of uncomplicated gonorrhea.

    Issuance of this guidance fulfills a portion of the requirements of Title VIII, section 804, of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), which requires FDA to review and, as appropriate, revise not fewer than three guidance documents per year for the conduct of clinical trials with respect to antibacterial and antifungal drugs.

    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 developing drugs for the treatment of uncomplicated gonorrhea. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001, respectively.

    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/GuidanceCompliance/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20306 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-2918] Pilot Program for Medical Device Reporting on Malfunctions AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is soliciting nominations for participation in a pilot program for the submission of medical device reports for malfunctions of class I devices and certain class II devices in summary format on a quarterly basis. Under the Medical Device Reporting on Malfunctions pilot program, FDA intends to work with manufacturers to identify candidates for the pilot program and intends to continue to accept nominations until candidates for the pilot program have been selected.

    DATES:

    FDA will begin accepting nominations for participation in the voluntary pilot program on September 1, 2015, and intends to continue to accept nominations until candidates for the pilot program have been selected. See section II for instructions on how to participate in the voluntary pilot program.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William C. Maloney, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 3236, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) (Pub. L. 110-85), amended section 519(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360i(a)), relating to the reporting of device malfunctions to FDA under part 803 (21 CFR part 803). Specifically, FDAAA amended the FD&C Act to require that medical device reports of malfunctions for class I devices and those class II devices that are not permanently implantable, life supporting, or life sustaining—with the exception of any type of class I or II device which FDA has, by notice, published in the Federal Register or by letter to the person who is the manufacturer or importer of the device, indicated should be subject to part 803 in order to protect the public health—be submitted in accordance with the criteria established by FDA (section 519(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the FD&C Act).1 The criteria must require the reports to be in summary form and made on a quarterly basis (section 519(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the FD&C Act).

    1 In light of section 1003(d) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 393(d)) and the Secretary of Health and Human Services' (the Secretary's) delegation to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, statutory references to “the Secretary” have been changed to “FDA” or the “Agency” in this document.

    FDA is considering the development of malfunction reporting criteria for devices subject to section 519(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the FD&C Act. In the interim, FDA clarified that all manufacturers of class I devices and those class II devices that are not permanently implantable, life supporting, or life sustaining, must continue to report in full compliance with part 803 (76 FR 12743 at 12744, March 8, 2011).

    The malfunction reporting requirements for class III devices and those class II devices that are permanently implantable, life supporting, or life sustaining were not altered by FDAAA. Under the amended section 519(a) of the FD&C Act, device manufacturers are to continue to submit malfunction reports in accordance with part 803 for all class III devices and for those class II devices that are permanently implantable, life supporting, or life sustaining, unless FDA grants an exemption or variance from, or an alternative to, a requirement under such regulations under § 803.19 (section 519(a)(1)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act).

    In addition, under section 519(a) of the FD&C Act, as amended by FDAAA, there is no change to the obligation for an importer to submit malfunction reports to the manufacturer in accordance with part 803 for devices that it imports into the United States (section 519(a)(1)(B)(iii) of the FD&C Act).

    FDA intends to use the information learned and experiences gained from the pilot program to develop the malfunction reporting criteria for devices subject to section 519(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the FD&C Act.

    II. Pilot Program for Medical Device Reporting (MDR) on Malfunctions

    FDA has developed this pilot program for manufacturers interested in submitting malfunction reports for certain devices in a summary format on a quarterly basis. This notice provides: (1) The guiding principles underlying the pilot program, (2) the conditions for participation in the pilot program, (3) a description of the pilot program, (4) the eligibility criteria for the pilot program, (5) the procedures that FDA intends to follow in the pilot program, (6) the manufacturer notification process, (7) FDA's review process for the summary reports, (8) the duration of the pilot program, and (9) FDA's evaluation process for the pilot program.

    A. Guiding Principles

    The following basic principles underlie the Medical Device Reporting on Malfunctions pilot program described in this notice. FDA intends for these principles to create a common understanding between the manufacturer and FDA about the goals and parameters of this pilot program.

    1. FDA is exploring a possible approach to summary reporting of device malfunctions on a quarterly basis under the pilot program (as illustrated in the case examples in this notice in section II.C. Description of the Program) that would allow FDA to collect sufficient detail to effectively monitor the devices subject to section 519(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the FD&C Act and protect the public health.

    2. The data received in this pilot should contain details sufficient to understand the device-related malfunctions. A narrative text should be provided to include a summary of the malfunction events, the results of the manufacturer's investigation of the reported malfunctions, including the type of any remedial action taken or an explanation of why remedial action was not taken, and any additional information that would be helpful to understand how the manufacturer addressed the malfunctions summarized in the report.

    3. As the summary information collected under this pilot represents a subset of the detailed information collected under § 803.52, FDA intends to use the existing electronic Medical Device Reporting (eMDR) infrastructure for the summary reports.

    4. All summary MDR reports 2 will appear in the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, which is publically available.

    2 Any information in the report that is protected from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) will be redacted prior to the release of the report.

    B. Conditions

    1. Under § 803.19, manufacturers who are accepted into the program will be granted an exemption or variance from, or alternative to, the reporting requirements under §§ 803.50(a) and 803.52 for those malfunction events associated with the devices selected for the pilot. Other reportable events involving the devices selected for the pilot must be reported to FDA within the mandatory 30-calendar day timeframe on Form FDA 3500A, as required by §§ 803.50(a) and 803.52, or within the 5-work day timeframe as required by § 803.53. Additional information and instructions will be provided to manufacturers accepted into the pilot.

    2. A candidate is not precluded from withdrawing from the pilot program at any time and returning to the individual reporting requirements of §§ 803.50(a) and 803.52.

    3. Due to FDA resource issues, FDA intends to limit the pilot program to no more than nine (9) candidates.

    4. At its discretion, FDA may withdraw a manufacturer from the pilot program, for reasons including, but not limited to, any violations of the FD&C Act, failure to follow the instructions of the pilot program, or if FDA obtains information after the manufacturer is accepted to the pilot program that the manufacturer is not an appropriate candidate for the program as described in this notice in section II.D. Appropriate Candidates. Withdrawal from the pilot program will result in a return to the individual reporting requirements of §§ 803.50(a) and 803.52.

    5. At its discretion, FDA may modify specific details regarding the pilot if needed. Any such changes will be communicated directly to the candidates of the pilot program.

    C. Description of the Program

    Candidates of the pilot program will submit Form FDA 3500A reports in electronic reporting format on a quarterly basis. For purposes of the pilot, “quarterly basis” is defined as a three (3) month period. Each submission should represent a summary of malfunction events received for a unique device problem code or set of codes within the quarterly timeframe, and for a particular device model number and/or catalog number. Device malfunctions that are summarized in one report should not be duplicated in any other submissions within the same quarterly timeframe.

    Summary reports should include the following information collected on Form FDA 3500A in electronic format:

    SECTION B.5: Describe Event or Problem—The device event narrative should include a description of the nature of the events (being as specific as possible); and if available, a range of patient age and weight, and a breakdown of patient gender. The first sentence of the device event narrative should include the following sentence:

    “This report summarizes <NOE> XXX </NOE> malfunction events” where XXX is replaced by the number of malfunction events being summarized.

    SECTION D.2 and D.2.b: Common Device Name and Procode—Enter the common name of the device and the product code.

    SECTION D.3: Manufacturer Name, City and State—Enter the manufacturer name, city and state where the manufacturer is located.

    SECTION D.4: Device Identification—Enter the model or catalog number for the device being summarized in the MDR report.

    SECTION G.1: Contact Office (and Manufacturing Site for Devices)—Enter the name and address of the manufacturer reporting site [contact office], including contact name for the report submitted. Enter the name and address of the manufacturing site for the device, if different from the contact office.

    SECTION G.2: Phone Number—Enter the phone number for the contact office.

    SECTION H.1: Type of Reportable Event—Check “Malfunction” in this box.

    SECTION H.6: Event Problem and Evaluation Codes—Enter the device problem code(s), including any codes received from a user facility or importer report provided in Section F.10 of Form FDA 3500A. Enter “9999” as the first device problem code to identify the report as a summary malfunction report. Enter the evaluation code(s) for the categories of method, results, and conclusions. Enter a conclusion code(s) even if the device was not evaluated.

    SECTION H.10: Additional Manufacturer Narrative—Provide a summary of the results of your investigation of the reported malfunctions, including the type of any remedial action taken or an explanation of why remedial action was not taken, and any additional information that would be helpful to understand how you addressed the malfunction events summarized in the report. Also enter a breakdown of the malfunction events summarized in the report, including the number of devices that were returned to you; the number of devices that were labeled for single use (if any); and the number of devices that were reprocessed and re-used (if any).

    Note:

    All reportable adverse events which result in a serious injury or death; and/or necessitate remedial action to prevent an unreasonable risk of substantial harm to the public health, are excluded from this pilot program. In addition, for reference here is the link to the on-line version of the Form FDA 3500A: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/UCM048334.pdf.

    Case Examples: The following examples are meant to illustrate the format for how malfunction reports submitted under this pilot will be captured. All of these examples are for class I devices and those class II devices that are not permanently implantable, life supporting, or life sustaining. These examples do not address interpretation of these reportable events.

    Case Scenario #1: Multiple malfunction reports for the same device problem. A manufacturer receives 50 similar reports within the quarterly timeframe indicating that model XYZ pump experienced an air detected set alarm, which interrupted delivery. The alarms may have been a false alarm. These events were received from various sources. Of the 50 adverse events, 46 did not involve patients, and 4 involved patients with no reported injuries or deaths. None of these events necessitate remedial action to prevent an unreasonable risk of substantial harm to the public health. The XYZ pumps were recently retrofitted with a new user interface software model V.2.04.12.

    Report for Case #1: A single summary MDR report is to be submitted to FDA through eMDR:

    • B.5: This report summarizes <NOE> 50 </NOE> malfunction events. A review of the events indicated that model XYZ pump experienced an air detected set alarm, which interrupted delivery. The alarms may have been a false alarm. These reports were received from various sources. Of the 50 events, 46 did not involve patients, and 4 involved patients with no patient consequences. The four patients ranged from 25-32 years of age and 130-250 lbs. Of the reported patients, one was male and three were female. The XYZ pumps were recently retrofitted with a new user interface software model V.2.04.12.

    • D.2: Infusion Pump

    • D.2.b: FRN

    • D.3: ABC Company, 123 Baker Street, Anywhere, MD, USA

    • D.4: Model XYZ

    • G.1: Mr. X, ABC company, 123 Baker Street, Anywhere, MD, USA

    • G.2: 301-555-0001

    • H.1: Malfunction

    • H.6: Device Codes: 9999 (Summary Malfunction); 1008 (Air Leak)

    • H.6: Manufacturer Method Codes: 10 (Actual Device Evaluated); 38 (Visual Inspection)

    • H.6: Manufacturer Results Code: 549 (Air pump assembly)

    • H.6: Manufacturer Evaluation Conclusion Codes: 52 (Device was out of calibration)

    • H.10: For 40 of the 50 reported events, the devices were returned to ABC, and their operating condition was confirmed by service. The cause of the malfunction was determined to be a faulty pump head module. To correct the condition, the pump head modules were replaced.

    Case Scenario #2: Multiple malfunction reports that have two device problems: A manufacturer receives 100 malfunction reports within the quarterly timeframe that include two types of device malfunctions that are related to a specific model (XYZ, Version 2) of a powered AC bed: (1) 75 events involve a broken weld near where the motor attaches; and (2) 55 events involve a screw that attaches the bed rail to the mounting bracket on the bed, which snapped. Some of the events involve both types of device malfunctions. None of the events involve patients. None of the events necessitate remedial action to prevent an unreasonable risk of substantial harm to the public health.

    Reports for Case #2: Under this pilot, a unique device problem code or set of codes for a particular device model number and/or catalog number that are summarized in one report should not be duplicated in any other submissions within the same quarterly timeframe. As a result, there are three categories of reports for this scenario—(1) 45 events that involve broken welds only; (2) 25 events that involve broken screws only; and (3) 30 events that involve both broken welds and broken screws. Therefore, three summary reports will need to be submitted to FDA through eMDR.

    Report #1:

    • B.5: This report summarizes <NOE> 45 </NOE> malfunction events. A review of the events indicated that model XYZ experienced broken welds near where the motor attaches to the powered AC beds. No patients were involved.

    • D.2: AC Powered Beds

    • D.2.b: FNL

    • D.3: ABC company, 123 Baker Street, Anywhere, MD, USA

    • D.4: Model XYZ

    • G.1: Mr. X, ABC Company, 123 Baker Street, Anywhere, MD, USA

    • G.2: 301-555-0001

    • H.1: Malfunction

    • H.6: Device Codes: 9999 (Summary Malfunction); 1069 (Break); 3195 (Weld)

    • H.6: Manufacturer Method Codes: 10 (Actual Device Evaluated); 38 (Visual Inspection)

    • H.6: Manufacturer Results Code: 170 (Manufacturing process problem)

    • H.6: Manufacturer Evaluation Conclusion Codes: 12 (Design deficiency)

    • H.10: To correct the condition, the beds were taken out of service.

    Report #2:

    • B.5: This report summarizes <NOE> 25 </NOE> malfunction events. A review of the events indicated that a screw that attaches the bed rail to the mounting bracket on the bed is snapping on model XYZ. No patients were involved.

    • D.2: AC Powered Beds

    • D.2.b: FNL

    • D.3: ABC company, 123 Baker Street, Anywhere, MD, USA

    • D.4: Model XYZ

    • G.1: Mr. X, ABC Company, 123 Baker Street, Anywhere, MD, USA

    • G.2: 301-555-0001

    • H.1: Malfunction

    • H.6: Device Codes: 9999 (Summary Malfunction); 1069 (Break); 568 (Screw)

    • H.6: Manufacturer Method Codes: 10 (Actual Device Evaluated); 38 (Visual Inspection)

    • H.6: Manufacturer Results Code: 170 (Manufacturing process problem)

    • H.6: Manufacturer Evaluation Conclusion Codes: 12 (Design deficiency)

    • H.10: To correct the condition, the beds were taken out of service temporarily. A technician was dispatched to replace the screw. Load testing was applied to verify bed rail performance.

    Report #3:

    • B.5: This report summarizes <NOE> 30 </NOE> malfunction events. A review of the events indicated that a screw that attaches the bed rail to the mounting bracket on the AC powered bed failed causing the bed rail to detach and collide with the beam near where the motor attaches. The force of impact caused a broken weld to form near the motor attachment on the AC powered bed. No patients were involved.

    • D.2: AC Powered Beds

    • D.2.b: FNL

    • D.3: ABC Company, 123 Baker Street, Anywhere, MD, USA

    • D.4: Model XYZ

    • G.1: Mr. X., ABC Company, 123 Baker Street, Anywhere, MD, USA

    • G.2: 301-555-0001

    • H.1: Malfunction

    • H.6: Device Codes: 9999 (Summary Malfunction); 1069 (Break); 3195 (Screw); 568 (Weld)

    • H.6: Manufacturer Method Codes: 10 (Actual Device Evaluated); 38 (Visual Inspection)

    • H.6: Manufacturer Results Code: 170 (Manufacturing process problem)

    • H.6: Manufacturer Evaluation Conclusion Codes: 12 (Design deficiency)

    • H.10: To correct the condition, the beds were taken out of service. Technicians have examined the beds and have opened up a Corrective and Preventive Action (CAPA) to address the design issue.

    D. Appropriate Candidates

    Appropriate candidates for the pilot program are manufacturers who:

    1. Are currently submitting reports to FDA using the paper Form FDA 3500A or the electronic MDR (eMDR) format.

    2. Manufacture class I devices and/or those class II devices that are not permanently implantable, life supporting, or life sustaining.

    3. Currently use or are willing to use eMDR to submit summary malfunction reports to the FDA during the pilot period.

    4. Are in compliance with the Medical Device Reporting regulation in 21 CFR part 803.

    E. Procedures 1. Nomination

    A manufacturer of class I devices and those class II devices that are not permanently implantable, life supporting, or life sustaining may nominate themselves for participation in the pilot program by submitting a nomination to [email protected]. FDA intends to acknowledge receipt of nominations via return email. The following information will assist FDA in processing and responding to nominations:

    • Name of manufacturer

    • Registration number

    • Contact name, address, phone number, and email address

    • Model or catalog number for the device(s) that you are requesting to include in the pilot, and

    • Product classification code for the device(s) that you are requesting to include in the pilot. You may access the Product Classification Code database at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm.

    2. FDA Consideration

    Acceptance of nominations will start 2 weeks following the publication date of this Federal Register notice. Because only a limited number of candidates are needed, FDA will use its discretion in choosing candidates based on the eligibility criteria in this Federal Register notice in section II.D. Appropriate Candidates, the needs of the pilot to include a diversity of manufacturers with regard to device type (including in vitro diagnostic devices), and expected number of malfunction events. FDA may contact the manufacturer to request supplemental information if this information is needed in order to complete our review of the request. The manufacturer must provide the supplemental information within 15 days of FDA's request; otherwise, the Agency will consider the nomination withdrawn.

    F. Manufacturer Notification

    FDA intends to notify manufacturers who are selected for this pilot program within 45 days from receiving their nomination or any supplemental information requested by FDA. Once FDA has selected the candidates for this pilot, FDA will notify subsequent applicants by email that the nomination period has closed.

    G. FDA Review

    All reports received under the pilot program will be reviewed and processed in the same manner as individual medical device reports that are submitted under part 803. A version of the report releasable under FOIA will be accessible through the public MAUDE database.

    H. Duration of the Pilot

    FDA intends for the pilot program to run for 2 calendar quarters for each candidate and will continue until the 2 calendar quarters have been completed for all candidates. At its discretion, FDA may terminate the pilot program before the close of this period, or FDA may extend the pilot program beyond the 2 calendar quarters. The decision to terminate or extend the pilot will be announced in the Federal Register.

    I. Evaluation

    FDA intends to evaluate all information and feedback received from the candidates and to use the information and experiences gained from the pilot program to develop criteria for summary reporting on a quarterly basis for devices subject to section 519(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the FD&C Act.

    III. Paper Reduction Act of 1995

    This notice refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 803 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0437; the collections of information in Form FDA 3500A have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0291.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20309 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-D-0903] Providing Submissions in Electronic Format—Postmarketing Safety Reports for Vaccines; 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 document entitled “Providing Submissions in Electronic Format—Postmarketing Safety Reports for Vaccines; Guidance for Industry.” The guidance document provides information and recommendations pertaining to the electronic submission of postmarketing safety reports involving vaccine products marketed for human use with approved biologics license applications (BLAs), including individual case safety reports (ICSRs) and attachments to ICSRs (ICSR attachments), into the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is a national vaccine safety surveillance program that is co-sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and FDA. FDA published in the Federal Register a final rule requiring that certain postmarketing safety reports for human drug and biological products, including vaccines, be submitted to FDA in an electronic format that the Agency can process, review, and archive. The guidance is intended to help applicants required to submit postmarketing safety reports involving vaccine products to comply with the final rule. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance of the same title, dated July 2014, and supersedes the document entitled “Guidance for Industry: How to Complete the Vaccine Adverse Event Report System Form (VAERS-1)” dated September 1998.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.

    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul E. Levine, Jr., Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Providing Submissions in Electronic Format—Postmarketing Safety Reports for Vaccines; Guidance for Industry.” The guidance document provides information and recommendations pertaining to the electronic submission of postmarketing safety reports involving vaccine products marketed for human use with approved BLAs, including ICSRs and ICSR attachments, into VAERS. VAERS is a national vaccine safety surveillance program established in response to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which requires health professionals and vaccine manufacturers to report specific adverse events that occur after the administration of routinely recommended vaccines. VAERS is co-sponsored by CDC and FDA. The guidance is applicable to vaccine products marketed for human use with approved BLAs for which CBER has regulatory responsibility. The guidance does not apply to any other biological product. Postmarketing ICSRs and ICSR attachments for biological products, which are not addressed by the guidance, are processed into the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database.

    In the Federal Register of June 10, 2014 (79 FR 33072), FDA published a final rule requiring that certain postmarketing safety reports for human drug and biological products, including vaccines, be submitted to FDA in an electronic format that the Agency can process, review, and archive. The guidance is intended to help those applicants required to submit postmarketing safety reports involving vaccine products to comply with the final rule.

    In the Federal Register of July 18, 2014 (79 FR 42022), FDA announced the availability of the draft guidance of the same title dated July 2014. FDA received a few comments on the draft guidance and those comments were considered as the guidance was finalized. The guidance includes changes to clarify the reporting requirements and technical process for submitting reports to VAERS. In addition, editorial changes were made to improve clarity. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated July 2014 and supersedes the document entitled “Guidance for Industry: How to Complete the Vaccine Adverse Event Report System Form (VAERS-1)” dated September 1998.

    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 Providing Submissions in Electronic Format—Postmarketing Safety Reports for Vaccines. 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. 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 310 and part 314 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0230. The collections of information in 21 CFR 310.305(e)(2), 314.80(g)(2), 329.100(c)(2), and 600.80(h)(2) (Form FDA 3500A), have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0770. The collection of information in 21 CFR part 600 is approved under OMB control number 0910-0308. The collection of information in Form FDA 3500A is approved under OMB control number 0910-0291.

    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 guidance at either http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20312 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-2853] Electronic Study Data Submission; Data Standards; Support for Study Data Tabulation Model Implementation Guide Version 3.2 AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) are announcing support for the 3.2 version (see section II. Exceptions) of Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) Study Data Tabulation Model Implementation Guide (SDTM IG 3.2), an update to the FDA Data Standards Catalog (Catalog), and availability of validation rules for the 3.2 version. SDTM IG 3.2 has been available from CDISC since December 2013. FDA is encouraging sponsors and applicants to use SDTM IG 3.2 (see section II. Exceptions) in investigational study data provided in regulatory submissions to CBER and to CDER.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ron Fitzmartin, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1192, Silver Spring, MD 20993-002, 301-796-5333, email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On December 17, 2014, FDA published a final guidance for industry entitled “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format—Standardized Study Data” (eStudy Data) posted on FDA's Study Data Standards Resources Web page at http://www.fda.gov/forindustry/datastandards/studydatastandards/default.htm. The eStudy Data guidance implements the electronic submission requirements of section 745A(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379k-1) for study data contained in new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), biologics license applications (BLAs), and investigational new drug applications (INDs) to CBER or CDER by specifying the format for electronic submissions. The initial timetable for the implementation of electronic submission requirements for study data is December 17, 2016 (24 months after issuance of final guidance for NDAs, BLAs, ANDAs, and 36 months for INDs). The eStudy Data guidance states that a Federal Register notice will specify the transition date for all version updates (with the month and day for the transition date corresponding to March 15).

    The transition date for support (see section II. Exceptions) of the 3.2 version of CDISC STDM IG is March 15, 2017. Although SDTM IG version 3.2 is supported as of this Federal Register notice and sponsors or applicants are encouraged to begin using it, the new version will only be required in submissions for studies that start after March 15, 2018. The Catalog will list March 15, 2018, as the “date requirement begins.” When multiple versions of an FDA-supported standard are listed in the Catalog, sponsors or applicants can select a version to use.

    II. Exceptions

    The following SDTM IG 3.2 domains have not completed testing and acceptance and are not supported at this time: Death Details and Exposure as Collected. The therapeutic area (TA) standards (http://www.cdisc.org/) that are included in SDTM IG 3.2 have not completed testing and acceptance and are not supported at this time. The specific domain and the TA standard are listed in the table that follows:

    SDTM IG 3.2 Domain TA User guide 1. Healthcare Encounters Cardiovascular Studies, 1.0; Polycystic Kidney Disease, 1.0; Asthma, 1.0. 2. Microscopic Findings Tuberculosis, 1.0; Parkinson's, 1.0. 3. Morphology Cardiovascular Studies, 1.0; Parkinson's, 1.0; Polycystic Kidney Disease, 1.0; Alzheimer's, 1.0; Multiple Sclerosis, 1.0. 4. Procedures Cardiovascular Studies, 1.0; Polycystic Kidney Disease, 1.0; Alzheimer's, 1.0. 5. Reproductive System Polycystic Kidney Disease, 1.0. 6. Disease Response Tuberculosis, 1.0. 7. Skin Response Asthma, 1.0.

    Sponsors and applicants with questions on how to implement the FDA-supported study data standards should contact and work with FDA technical staff. For questions, contact CDER at [email protected] or CBER at [email protected].

    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 proposed recommendations at either http://www.fda.gov/forindustry/datastandards/studydatastandards/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20316 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary [Document Identifier: HHS-OS-0990-New-60D] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, announces plans to submit a new Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.

    DATES:

    Comments on the ICR must be received on or before October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or by calling (202) 690-6162.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information Collection Clearance staff, [email protected] or (202) 690-6162.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier HHS-OS-0990-New-60D.

    Information Collection Request Title: Evaluation of the Office on Women's Health Coalition for a Healthier Community Initiative

    Abstract: This collection is to provide data for the national evaluation of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office on Women's Health (OWH) Coalition for a Healthier Community (CHC) Initiative. The initiative supports 10 communities with grants to support coalitions in implementing gender-based public health systems approaches, evidence-based health interventions, and outreach and education activities to reduce barriers to and enhance facilitators of improvements in women and girls' health. Each of the grantees has implemented an IRB-approved local evaluation; however, OWH is seeking to collect core data across grantees to examine the extent to which the Government's investment has resulted in achieving OWH-related Healthy People 2020 priorities and yields lessons learned upon which to plan future initiatives related to its mission.

    Likely Respondents: The proposed collection includes plans for interviews with key staff (project directors, project coordinators, local evaluators), coalition members (including chairs and co-chairs), and community leaders connected to the coalitions. These respondents will also complete online surveys about their perceptions of the changes in their community as a result of coalition activities. Program participants and other community members exposed to the coalitions' activities through social media will also complete online surveys. Project directors and local evaluators also annually provide information to OWH on their coalition's functioning, the status of the cost-effectiveness analysis for their coalition's interventions, and the coalition's plans for sustainability. The following table summarizes the “Total Estimated Annualized Burden—Hours” by form and type of respondent.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden—Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hrs)
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • 1—Key Persons Discussion Guide for Telephone Interviews 90 2 1 180 2—Key Persons, Coalition Members, and Community Leaders Online Survey 200 1 20/60 67 3—Coalition Participants and Other Community Members Online Survey 510 1 20/60 170 4—Grantee Annual Report on Coalition Functioning, Cost-Effectiveness, and Sustainability Planning 10 2 2 40 Total 457

    OS specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    Terry S. Clark, Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20357 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the AIDS Research Advisory Committee, NIAID.

    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: AIDS Research Advisory Committee, NIAID AIDS Vaccine Research Subcommittee, NIAID.

    Date: September 22, 2015.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: Presentations by invited speakers to discuss correlates of AIDS vaccine protection studies in nonhuman primates. In addition, there will be presentations and discussion on vaccine-specific HLA-E and class II-restricted CD8+ cells and their role in nonhuman primate protection observed with AIDS vaccines based on CMV vectors.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Conference Room 1D13, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: James A. Bradac, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, AVRS, Division of AIDS, Room 9B60, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9829, Rockville, MD 20892-9829, 301-435-3754, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 13, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20330 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    A portion of the meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Advisory Board.

    Date: September 16, 2015.

    Open: 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: Director's report and business of the Board.

    Closed: 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room TE406, Rockville, MD 20850, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Paulette S. Gray, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W-444, Bethesda, MD 20892, (240) 276-6340, [email protected]

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/ncab/ncab.htm, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 13, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20328 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; Center for Engineered Cartilage (2016/01).

    Date: October 1, 2015.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, Suite 920, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: John K. Hayes, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 959, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-3398, [email protected].

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20329 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2015-0673] Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee will meet in Seattle, Washington to discuss various issues relating to safety in the commercial fishing industry. This meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The Committee will meet on Tuesday, September 15 and Wednesday, September 16, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The meeting may close early if all business is finished.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Committee will meet at the United States District Court House located at 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, Washington, Room 19205. http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/visitors/seattle-courthouse

    If you are planning to attend the meeting, you will be required to pass through a security checkpoint. You will be required to show valid government identification. Please arrive at least 30 minutes before the planned start of the meeting in order to pass through security.

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, as soon as possible.

    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Committee as listed in the “Agenda” section below. Written comments must be submitted no later than September 4, 2015 if you want Committee members to be able to review your comments before the meeting. Comments must be identified by docket number USCG-2015-0673, and submitted by one of the following methods:

    Federal Electronic Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov (preferred method to avoid delays in processing).

    Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), United States Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, South East, Washington, District of Columbia 20590-0001.

    Facsimile: (202) 493-2251

    Hand Delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    Docket: For access to the docket to read documents or comments related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, enter the docket number in the “SEARCH” box, press Enter and then click on the item you wish to view.

    Public oral comment periods will be held during the meeting after each presentation and at the end of each day. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that the public oral comment periods may end before the prescribed ending time following the last call for comments. Contact Jack Kemerer as indicated below to register as a speaker.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jack Kemerer, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee, Commandant (CG-CVC-3), United States Coast Guard Headquarters, 2703 Martin Luther King Junior Avenue, South East, Mail Stop 7501, Washington, DC 20593-7501; telephone 202-372-1249, facsimile 202-372-8376, electronic mail: [email protected] If you have any questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-493-0402 or 1-800-647-5527.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 5 United States Code, Appendix.

    The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee is authorized by Title 46 United States Code Section 4508. The Committee's purpose is to provide advice and recommendations to the United States Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security on matters relating to the safety of commercial fishing industry vessels.

    A copy of available meeting documentation should be posted to the docket, as noted above, and at http://fishsafe.info/ by August 31, 2015. Post-meeting documentation will be posted to the Web site within 30 days after the meeting, or as soon as possible. Alternatively, you may contact Jack Kemerer as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    Agenda

    The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee will meet to review, discuss and formulate recommendations on topics contained in the agenda:

    DAY 1

    The meeting will include administrative matters, reports, presentations, discussions, and Subcommittee/working group sessions as follows:

    (1) Swearing-in of new members, election of Chair and Vice-Chair, and completion of Department of Homeland Security Form 420 by Special Government Employee members.

    (2) Status of Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Rulemaking projects resulting from requirements set forth in the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 and the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012.

    (3) Coast Guard District Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Coordinator reports on activities and initiatives.

    (4) Industry Representative updates on safety and survival equipment, and classification of fishing vessels.

    (5) Presentation and discussion on casualties by regions and fisheries and update on safety and risk reduction-related projects by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

    (6) Presentation and discussion on tonnage and documentation issues.

    (7) Subcommittee/working group sessions, as time allows, on (a) standards for alternative safety compliance program(s) development, (b) definitions and safety equipment requirements that should be considered in future rulemaking projects, and (c) requirements of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel, 1995.

    (8) Public comment period.

    (9) Adjournment of meeting.

    There will be a comment period for Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee members and a comment period for the public after each presentation and discussion. The Committee will review the information presented on any issues, deliberate on any recommendations presented in Subcommittee reports, and formulate recommendations for the Department's consideration.

    DAY 2

    The meeting will primarily be dedicated to continuing Subcommittee/working group sessions, but will also include:

    (1) Reports and recommendations from Subcommittees/working groups to the full committee for discussion, deliberation, and adoption for presentation to the Coast Guard as determined by committee voting. The public will have opportunity to comment on reports and discussions prior to the committee taking action on such reports or recommendations.

    (2) Other safety recommendations and safety program strategies from the Committee.

    (3) Public comment period.

    (4) Future plans and goals for the Committee.

    (5) Adjournment of meeting.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. V.B. Gifford, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20378 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [DOT-OST-2015-0105] Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System (NDGPS) AGENCY:

    DHS—Coast Guard, DOT—Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), and DOD—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Office of Engineering and Construction

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for public comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System (NDGPS) service augments GPS by providing increased accuracy and integrity using land-based reference stations to transmit correction messages over radiobeacon frequencies. The service was implemented through agreements between multiple Federal agencies including the United States Coast Guard (USCG), Department of Transportation (DOT), and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as well as several states and scientific organizations, all cooperating to provide the combined national DGPS utility. However, a number of factors have contributed to declining use of NDGPS and, based on an assessment by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), DOT, and USACE, DHS, DOT, and USACE are proposing to shutdown and decommission 62 DGPS sites, which will leave 22 operational sites available to users in coastal areas. This notice seeks public comments on the shutdown and decommissioning of a total of 62 DGPS sites. Termination of the NDGPS broadcast at these sites is planned to occur on January 15, 2016.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before November 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number DOT-OST-2015-0105 using any one of the following methods:

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

    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this notice, contact CAPT Scott Smith, Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-1545 or email [email protected]; or James Arnold, OST-R, NDGPS Program Manager, telephone 202-366-8422 or email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Participation

    You may submit comments and related material regarding this proposed action. All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (DOT-OST-2015-0105) and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and use “DOT-OST-2015-0105” as your search term. Locate this notice in the results and click the corresponding “Comment Now” box to submit your comment. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.

    We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

    Viewing the comments: To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and use “DOT-OST-2015-0105” as your search term. Use the filters on the left side of the page to highlight “Public Submissions” or other document types. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting 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.

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

    Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard (USCG) began development of the Maritime Differential Global Positioning System (MDGPS) in the late 1980s. The GPS Standard Positioning Service (SPS) lacked sufficient accuracy and timely integrity monitoring, and soon later, was unable to meet requirements for coastal and Harbor Entrance and Approach (HEA) phases of navigation found in the International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (IALA) R-121 and International Maritime Organization (IMO) A.953(23) recommendations, and to support the buoy positioning mission. The differential technique used by DGPS employs the installation of navigation equipment at a precisely known location. The equipment receives the GPS signal and compares the position solution from the received signal to its known location. The result of this comparison is then generated in the form of a correction message and sent to local users via radiobeacon broadcast to improve the accuracy and integrity of GPS-derived positions. In March of 1999, the MDGPS service was certified to meet the performance standards required for HEA navigation with its 49 geographically dispersed sites providing coverage to a number of ports and waterways in the contiguous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. MDGPS provided improved horizontal positioning accuracy of better than 10 meters, integrity (signal accuracy and continuity of delivery checking) alarms for GPS, and MDGPS out-of-tolerance conditions within 10 seconds of detection.

    In 1997, the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-66, section 346 (111 Stat. 1449)) authorized the implementation of the inland component of the system. As a result, 29 additional inland sites were added to the network. These sites, along with seven sites provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, became known as Nationwide DGPS (NDGPS). The USCG was designated as lead for implementation, operation, and maintenance of the service. DOT is the NDGPS sponsor and chairs the multi-agency NDGPS Policy and Implementation Team (PIT) which directs the overall management of the NDGPS system. In cooperation with DOT, DHS, and USACE, many states and scientific organizations are also beneficiaries of the DGPS system, such as the National Weather Service's Forecast System Laboratory for short-term precipitation forecasts, and the University NAVSTAR Consortium for plate tectonic monitoring.

    However, a number of factors have contributed to the declining use of NDGPS. Contributing factors include: (1) USCG changes in policy to allow aids to navigation (ATON) to be positioned with a GPS receiver using Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM), which assesses the integrity of a GPS signal within the receiver; (2) increased use of Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) in commercial maritime applications, which uses ground-based reference stations and satellite communications to improve accuracy; (3) limited availability of consumer-grade NDGPS receivers; (4) no NDGPS mandatory carriage requirement on any vessel within U.S. territorial waters; (5) the May 1, 2000 Presidential Directive discontinuing GPS Selective Availability http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/html/0053_2.html; (6) continuing GPS modernization; and (7) the DOT Federal Railroad Administration's determination 1 that NDGPS is not a requirement for the successful implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC), which provides the railway system the capability to positively enforce movement authorities along railroad systems.

    1 Letter from Federal Railroad Administration to USCG dated January 29, 2013 with subject “Elimination of the Requirement for the NDGPS to support PTC mandated by the RSIA of 2008.”

    In April 2013, DHS and DOT published a notice in the Federal Register2 announcing that DHS and DOT were in the process of analyzing the current and future user needs and requirements for NDGPS, and requesting public comment on:

    2 78 FR 22554 (Apr. 16, 2013). The Notice was published under docket numbers, USCG-2013-0054 and RITA-2013-0001.

    (1) The commenter's usage of NDGPS for positioning, navigation, and timing;

    (2) The impact on NDGPS users if NDGPS were discontinued;

    (3) If NDGPS were discontinued, the possible alternatives for meeting users' positioning, navigation, and timing requirements; and

    (4) Potential alternative uses for the existing NDGPS infrastructure.

    The response to the 2013 notice was limited, but the responses received were well informed on the NDGPS system, its use, and current and potential applications. While a limited number of responders found the broadcast of corrections to be beneficial, no respondents reported the discontinuance of DGPS broadcast to be detrimental or harmful. Ship pilots in particular noted that DGPS can be critical in confined waterways for precise shiphandling maneuvers.

    Several commenters noted that NDGPS is part of the Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS) 3 network, which is used with GPS data to improve the precision of positioning, has value while others stated they had alternative networks available. The USCG cooperates with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Geodetic Survey (NGS) to supplement their network of CORS reference stations with NDGPS sites. Today, DGPS sites account for approximately 5% of the CORS network, which is comprised of more than 1,900 geodetic-grade GPS receivers. CORS is widely used by Federal, state, and non-government entities throughout the United States to provide data for 3-dimensional positioning for use in land surveys, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Land Information Systems (LIS), and environmental management. Additionally, raw GPS data is provided to NOAA's National Weather Service from all DGPS sites for weather analysis and prediction.

    3 CORS support surveying, mapping, and related disciplines that have accuracy requirements which require the use of a relative positioning technique. CORS automatically collect and record the GPS data at known locations in support of these activities.

    A few respondents noted the broadcast signals provide non-line-of-sight benefits. Respondents suggested alternatives to NDGPS as currently implemented, such as using existing NDGPS stations to rebroadcast WAAS corrections, adding other data to the broadcast, integrating the broadcast with positioning technologies, or simply streaming data from the reference stations.

    After considering the comments and based on an assessment by DHS, DOT, and USACE, we propose to shutdown and decommission 62 sites, which is planned to occur on January 15, 2016, which will leave 22 operational sites available to users in those waterway where pilots generally operate, i.e., where marine traffic is most frequent and the need for precise marine navigation is greatest. However, it is possible for the reference stations to be transitioned to other Federal, state, and/or local agencies. Questions about potential transition of specific reference stations should be directed to the individual(s) referenced in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    The specific sites to be disestablished are:

    Maritime Sites:

    • Appleton, WA • Biorka, AK • Bobo, MS • Brunswick, ME • Cape Hinchinbrook, AK • Cheboygan, MI • Cold Bay, AK • Driver, VA • Eglin, FL • Gustavus, AK • Isabela, PR • Key West, FL • Kodiak, AK • Kokole Point, HI • Level Island, AK • Lompoc, CA • Mequon, MI • New Bern, NC • Penobscot, ME • Pigeon Point, CA • Robinson Pt, WA • Saginaw, MI • Sandy Hook, NJ • Sturgeon Bay, WI • Upper Keweenaw, MI • Wisconsin Point, WI • Youngstown, NY

    Inland Sites:

    • Albuquerque, NM • Austin, NV • Bakersfield, CA • Billings, MT • Chico, CA • Clark, SD • Dandridge, TN • Essex, CA • Flagstaff, AZ • Greensboro, NC • Hackleburg, AL • Hagerstown, MD • Hartsville, TN • Hawk Run, PA • Hudson Falls, NY • Klamath Falls, OR • Macon, GA • Medora, ND • Myton, UT • Pine River, MN • Polson, MT • Pueblo, CO • Savannah, GA • Seneca, OR • Spokane, WA • St. Marys, WV • Summerfield, TX • Topeka, KS • Whitney, NE

    Inland Sites operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:

    • Louisville, KY • Millers Ferry, AL • Rock Island, IA • Sallisaw, OK • St. Louis, MO • St. Paul (Alma), MN

    For more information on the NDGPS, visit the USCG's Web site at http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=dgpsMain. Additional information on GPS, NDGPS, and other GPS augmentation systems is available in the 2014 Federal Radionavigation Plan, published by the Department of Defense, DHS, and DOT, which is also available at the USCG's Web site at http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=pubsMain.

    Request for Comments

    This notice seeks public comments on the shutdown and decommissioning of a total of 62 DGPS sites, which would leave 22 operational sites available to users in coastal areas on January 15, 2016.

    Graphics showing the predicted coverage before and after the proposed sites are decommissioned, and a list of the sites, is available at the USCG's NDGPS General Information Web site at: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=dgpsMain.

    Authority

    This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 14 U.S.C. 81, and 49 U.S.C. 301 (Pub. L. 105-66, section 346).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 10, 2015. Gary Rasicot, Director of Marine Transportation Systems, U.S. Coast Guard. Gregory D. Winfree, Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, U.S. Department of Transportation. Robert A. Bank, Chief, Civil Works Branch of Engineering and Construction, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20401 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0138] Agency Information Collection Activities: Biometric Identity AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    60-Day Notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Biometric Identity. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with a change to the burden hours but no change to the information collected. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before October 19, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be mailed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn: Tracey Denning, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). The comments should address: (a) Whether the 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 estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document, CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

    Title: Biometric Identity.

    OMB Number: 1651-0138.

    Abstract: In order to enhance national security, the Department of Homeland Security developed a biometric based entry and exit system capable of improving the information resources available to immigration and border management decision-makers. These biometrics include: Digital fingerprint scans, photographs, facial images and iris images, or other biometric identifiers. Biometrics are collected from those aliens specified in 8 CFR 215.8 and 8 CFR 235.1(f). Non-exempt, non-U.S. citizens will have their facial and iris images captured upon entry to and exit from the United States. The information collected is used to provide assurance of identity and determine admissibility of those seeking entry into the United States.

    The federal statutes that mandate DHS to create a biometric entry and exit system include: Section 2(a) of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of 2000 (DMIA), Public Law 106-215, 114 Stat. 337 (2000); Section 205 of the Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act of 2000, Public Law 106-396, 114 Stat. 1637, 1641 (2000); Section 414 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act), Public Law 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, 353 (2001); Section 302 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (Border Security Act), Public Law 107-173, 116 Stat. 543, 552, (2002); Section 7208 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), Public Law 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638, 3817 (2004); and Section 711 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Public Law 110-52, 121 Stat. 266 (2007).

    Current Actions: This submission is being made to extend the expiration date with a change to the burden hours based on most recent estimates for the annual number of responses. There are no changes to the information being collected.

    Type of Review: Extension (with change).

    Affected Public: Individuals.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 113,200,000.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: .0097 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,098,040.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20400 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-MB-2015-N159; FF09M21200-156- FXMB1231099BPP0] Proposed Information Collection; Control and Management of Resident Canada Geese AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2015. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, we must receive them by October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments on the IC to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or [email protected] (email). Please include “1018-0133” in the subject line of your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request additional information about this IC, contact Hope Grey at [email protected] (email) or 703-358-2482 (telephone).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the take, possession, import, export, transport, sale, purchase, or bartering of migratory birds or their parts except as permitted under the terms of a valid permit or as permitted by regulations. In 2006, we issued regulations establishing two depredation orders and three control orders that allow State and tribal wildlife agencies, private landowners, and airports to conduct resident Canada goose population management, including the take of birds. We monitor the data collected for activities under these orders and may rescind an order if monitoring indicates that activities are inconsistent with conservation of Canada geese.

    Control order for airports. 50 CFR 21.49 allows managers at commercial, public, and private airports and military airfields and their employees or agents to implement management of resident Canada geese to resolve or prevent threats to public safety. An airport must be part of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems and have received Federal grant-in-aid assistance or be a military airfield under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of the Secretary of a military department. Each facility exercising the privileges of the order must submit an annual report with the date, numbers, and locations of birds, nests, and eggs taken.

    Depredation order for nests and eggs. 50 CFR 21.50 allows private landowners and managers of public lands to destroy resident Canada goose nests and eggs on property under their jurisdiction, provided they register annually on our Web site at https://epermits.fws.gov/eRCGR. Registrants must provide basic information, such as name, address, phone number, and email, and identify where the control work will occur and who will conduct it. Registrants must return to the Web site to report the number of nests with eggs they destroyed.

    Depredation order for agricultural facilities. 50 CFR 21.51 allows States and tribes, via their wildlife agencies, to implement programs to allow landowners, operators, and tenants actively engaged in commercial agriculture to conduct damage management control when geese are committing depredations or to resolve or prevent other injury to agricultural interests. State and tribal wildlife agencies in the Atlantic, Central, and Mississippi Flyway portions of 41 States may implement the provisions of the order. Each implementing agricultural producer must maintain a log of the date and number of birds taken under this authorization. Each State and tribe exercising the privileges of the order must submit an annual report of the numbers of birds, nests, and eggs taken, and the county or counties where take occurred.

    Public health control order. 50 CFR 21.52 authorizes States and tribes of the lower 48 States to conduct (via the State or tribal wildlife agency) resident Canada goose control and management activities when the geese pose a direct threat to human health. States and tribes operating under this order must submit an annual report summarizing activities, including the numbers of birds taken and the county where take occurred.

    Population control. 50 CFR 21.61 establishes a managed take program to reduce and stabilize resident Canada goose populations when traditional and otherwise authorized management measures are not successful or feasible. A State or tribal wildlife agency in the Atlantic, Mississippi, or Central Flyway may request approval for this population control program. If approved, the State or tribe may use hunters to harvest resident Canada geese during the month of August. Requests for approval must include a discussion of the State's or tribe's efforts to address its injurious situations using other methods, or a discussion of the reasons why the methods are not feasible. If the Service Director approves a request, the State or tribe must (1) keep annual records of activities carried out under the authority of the program, and (2) provide an annual summary, including number of individuals participating in the program and the number of resident Canada geese shot. Additionally, participating States and tribes must monitor the spring breeding population by providing an annual estimate of the breeding population and distribution of resident Canada geese in their State.

    Regulations at 50 CFR 21.49, 21.50, 21.51, and 21.52 require that persons or entities operating under the depredation and control orders must immediately report the take of any species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This information ensures that the incidental take limits authorized under Section 7 of the ESA are not exceeded.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1018-0133.

    Title: Control and Management of Resident Canada Geese, 50 CFR 20.21, 21.49, 21.50, 21.51, 21.52, and 21.61.

    Service Form Number: None.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Description of Respondents: State fish and wildlife agencies, tribes, and local governments; airports; landowners; and farms.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

    Frequency of Collection: Annually.

    Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.

    Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • Completion
  • time per
  • response
  • Total annual
  • burden hours *
  • 21.49—Airport Control Order—Annual Report 50 50 1.5 hours 76 21.50—Nest and Egg Depredation Order—Initial Registration 1,000 1,000 30 minutes 500 21.50—Nest and Egg Depredation Order—Renew Registration 3,000 3,000 15 minutes 751 21.50—Nest and Egg Depredation Order—Annual Report 4,000 4,000 15 minutes 1,000 21.51—Agricultural Depredation Order—Recordkeeping 600 600 30 minutes 300 21.51—Agricultural Depredation Order—Annual Report 20 20 8 hours 160 21.52—Public Health Control Order—Annual Report 20 20 1 hour 20 21.49, 21.50, 21.51, and 21.52—Report Take of Endangered Species 2 2 15 minutes 1 21.61—Population Control Approval Request—Recordkeeping and Annual Report 8 8 24 hours 192 21.61—Population Control Approval Request—Population Estimates 8 8 160 hours 1,280 Totals 8,708 8,708 4,280 * Rounded.
    III. Comments

    We invite comments concerning this information collection on:

    • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Tina A. Campbell, Chief, Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20335 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R5-NWRS-2015-0036; BAC-4311-K9-S3] Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge; Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and environmental impact statement (EIS) for Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge (Conte NFWR) for public review and comment. In this draft CCP/EIS, we describe how we propose to manage Conte NFWR over the next 15 years.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments by November 16, 2015. We will hold informal public information meetings during the comment period to provide information and answer questions on the draft plan. We will also hold four public hearings during the comment period to take oral comments. In addition, we will use special mailings, newspaper articles, internet postings, and other media announcements to inform people of opportunities to provide comments.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments or requests for more information by any one of the following methods:

    • Electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. In the “Search” box, commenters will enter the docket number (FWS-R5-NWRS-2015-0036) for this project. Comments can be submitted by clicking on “Comment Now!” Attachments can be made to the electronic comment form.

    • By hard copy via U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R5-NWRS-2015-0036; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; MS BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    • Via oral public testimony at one of the four public hearings that will be scheduled.

    All comments will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov and will be available for public viewing. This generally means that any personal information you provide us will be posted with the comment.

    You will find the draft CCP/EIS, as well as information about the planning process and a summary of the CCP, on the planning Web site at http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Silvio_O_Conte/what_we_do/conservation.html. To view comments on the CCP/EIS from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or for information on EPA's role in the EIS process, see EPA's Role in the EIS Process under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nancy McGarigal, Planning Team Leader, phone: 413-253-8562; Email: [email protected] Please include “Conte Refuge Draft CCP/EIS” in the subject line of the message.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Introduction

    With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Conte NFWR, which we began by publishing a notice of intent in the Federal Register (71 FR 62006) on October 20, 2006. For more information about the initial process and the history of this refuge, please see that notice. In addition, EPA is publishing a notice announcing the availability of the draft CCP/EIS, as required under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). The publication of EPA's notice of availability is the official start of the minimum requirement for a 45-day public comment period. We have chosen to distribute this draft CCP/EIS for a 90-day public comment period.

    EPA's Role in the EIS Process

    The EPA is charged under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act to review all Federal agencies' EISs and to comment on the adequacy and the acceptability of the environmental impacts of proposed actions in the EISs.

    EPA also serves as the repository (EIS database) for EISs prepared by Federal agencies and provides notice of their availability in the Federal Register. The EIS database provides information about EISs prepared by Federal agencies, as well as EPA's comments concerning the EISs. All EISs are filed with EPA, which publishes a notice of availability on Fridays in the Federal Register. For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html. You may search for EPA comments on EISs, along with EISs themselves, at https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

    Background

    The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, (Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose of a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year strategy for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and Service policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Administration Act.

    Each unit of the NWRS was established for specific purposes. We use these purposes as the foundation for developing and prioritizing the management goals and objectives for each refuge within the NWRS mission, and to determine how the public can use each refuge. The planning process is a way for us and the public to evaluate management goals and objectives that will ensure the best possible approach to wildlife, plant, and habitat conservation, while providing for wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities that are compatible with each refuge's establishing purposes and the mission of the NWRS.

    Additional Information

    The draft CCP/EIS for Conte NFWR, which includes detailed information about the planning process, refuge, issues, and management alternatives considered and proposed, may be found at http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Silvio_O_Conte/what_we_do/conservation.html. There are four alternative refuge management options considered in the draft plan. The Service's preferred alternative is alternative C.

    The alternatives analyzed in detail include:

    • Alternative A—Current Management: This alternative represents continuing current management and serves as a baseline for comparing the other alternatives. Under this alternative, we would continue our current habitat and visitor services management activities on existing refuge lands. We would also continue to work with our existing partners throughout the Connecticut River Watershed (watershed) to support our conservation, education, and recreation programs. We would continue to actively manage forest habitats on the Nulhegan Basin Division (Vermont) to benefit forest-dependent species of conservation concern, and manage grasslands and shrublands habitats on our Pondicherry (New Hampshire) and Fort River (Massachusetts) Divisions for species dependent on those habitats. We would maintain our hunting and fishing programs on refuge lands, which generally are managed consistent with respective State regulations. We would also continue to acquire lands from willing sellers under our existing approved land acquisition authority of approximately 98,000 acres. Our focus would continue to be on acquiring lands that were identified in the refuge's 1995 Master Plan and its accompanying EIS.

    • Alternative B—Consolidated Stewardship: This alternative would strategically focus our work with partners, and our staffing, funding, and other resource commitments across the watershed, in 14 defined geographic areas called Conservation Partnership Areas (CPAs). CPAs are large areas, defined by sub-watersheds, with concentrations of high-value habitat for fish and wildlife. Within CPAs, we have identified a total of 18 areas we call Conservation Focus Areas (CFAs). These are areas with particularly high value to Federal trust resources and represent where we would focus our future refuge land acquisition. Under alternative B, we would not seek to expand the refuge beyond our current acreage authority. Instead, we propose to focus acquisition in CFAs rather than in the smaller, scattered areas proposed in the refuge's 1995 Master Plan and EIS. Under alternative B, we would expand our current wildlife habitat and visitor services management activities to other refuge divisions, and support those same opportunities within CPAs on other ownerships across the watershed.

    • Alternative C—Enhanced Conservation Connections and Partnerships (Service's Preferred Alternative): Similar to alternative B, we would prioritize our work with partners in CPAs, and focus future refuge acquisitions in CFAs. However, under alternative C, we would seek to expand the refuge's approved acquisition authority in the watershed up to approximately 197,000 acres. The expanded network of 17 CPAs and 22 CFAs would allow for greater flexibility and opportunity for us to work with partners to achieve common conservation goals. We would be a more significant contributor to a well-connected conserved lands network in the watershed. Under alternative C, we would be able to increase our benefits to species of conservation concern by managing more acres of habitat with better distribution across the watershed. Expanding the refuge land base would also enhance our ability to address, and adapt our management to, climate change. We would be able to provide more public access for compatible recreational opportunities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and photography. We would also expand our education and interpretive programs with an emphasis on engaging urban communities.

    • Alternative D—Conservation Connections Emphasizing Natural Processes: Similar to alternative C, we would prioritize our work both on and off refuge lands in the same 17 CPAs, and would focus refuge acquisition in the same 22 CFAs. However, under alternative D, we would further expand individual CFAs and seek additional acquisition authority of up to approximately 236,000 acres. The increased acres would further enhance the refuge's capability to establish connections in the watershed's conserved lands network, and would strengthen our ability to adapt refuge lands to climate change. A major difference between alternatives C and D is that alternative D proposes to limit active habitat management. We would only intervene in natural processes when a federally listed species is in jeopardy, or a major wildfire or pest outbreak occurs and restoration is a critical need. Under alternative D, we would be able to provide more public access due to the increased land base, but our visitor services programs would emphasize a reduced human footprint, with a focus on backcountry opportunities and fewer developed areas.

    Public Involvement

    We will give the public an opportunity to ask questions and obtain more information about the draft plan at our informal public meetings. We will take oral testimony at the formal public hearings. You can obtain the schedule for meetings and the hearings, and find the address for submitting your comments, from the address or Web site listed in this notice (see ADDRESSES). You may also submit written comments anytime during the comment period.

    Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: June 3, 2015. Wendi Weber, Regional Director, Northeast Region.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20184 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-ES-2015-N158; FGES111309WLLF0 156] Proposed Information Collection; Wolf-Livestock Demonstration Project Grant Program AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2015. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, we must receive them by October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments on the IC to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or [email protected] (email). Please include “1018-0154” in the subject line of your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request additional information about this IC, contact Hope Grey at [email protected] (email) or 703-358-2482 (telephone).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    Subtitle C of Title VI of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Act; Pub. L. 111-11) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a Wolf-Livestock Demonstration Project Grant Program (WLDPGP) to:

    • Assist livestock producers in undertaking proactive, nonlethal activities to reduce the risk of livestock loss due to predation by wolves; and

    • Compensate livestock producers for livestock losses due to such predation.

    The Act directs that the program be established as a grant program to provide funding to States and tribes, that the Federal cost-share not exceed 50 percent, and that funds be expended equally between the two purposes. The Act included an authorization of appropriations up to $1 million each fiscal year for 5 years. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Program will allocate the funding as competitively awarded grants to States and tribes with a prior history of wolf depredation. States with delisted wolf populations are eligible for funding, provided that they meet the eligibility criteria contained in Public Law 111-11.

    The following additional criteria apply to all WLDPGP grants and must be satisfied for a project to receive WLDPGP funding:

    • A proposal cannot include U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service full-time equivalent (FTE) costs.

    • A proposal cannot seek funding for projects that serve to satisfy regulatory requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), including complying with a biological opinion under section 7 or fulfilling commitments of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) under section 10, or for projects that serve to satisfy other Federal regulatory requirements (e.g., mitigation for Federal permits).

    • State administrative costs must be assumed by the State or included in the proposal in accordance with Federal requirements.

    We will publish notices of funding availability on the Grants.gov Web site at http://www.grants.gov, as well as in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance at http://cfda.gov. To compete for grant funds, eligible States and tribes must submit an application that describes in substantial detail project locations, project resources, future benefits, and other characteristics that meet the Wolf-Livestock Demonstration Project Grant Program purposes as listed above. In accordance with the Act, States and tribes that receive a grant must:

    • Maintain files of all claims received under programs funded by the grant, including supporting documentation; and

    • Submit an annual report that includes a summary of claims and expenditures under the program during the year and a description of any action taken on the claims.

    Materials that describe the program and assist applicants in formulating project proposals will be available on our Web site at www.fws.gov/grants. Persons who do not have access to the Internet may obtain instructional materials by mail.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1018-0154.

    Title: Wolf-Livestock Demonstration Project Grant Program.

    Service Form Number: None.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Description of Respondents: States and Indian tribes.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain a Benefit.

    Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 10.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.

    Activity Number of
  • responses
  • Completion
  • time per
  • response
  • Total annual
  • burden hours
  • Applications 10 8 hours 80 Reports and Recordkeeping 10 14 hours 140 Totals 20 220
    III. Comments

    We invite comments concerning this information collection on:

    • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Tina A. Campbell, Chief, Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20334 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-EQD-SSB-19077; PPAKGAARC6, PPMPRLE1Z.LS0000 (155)] Proposed Information Collection: Community Harvest Assessments for Alaskan National Parks and Preserves AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (National Park Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) concerning community harvest assessments for Alaskan National Parks and Preserves. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. A federal agency not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    To ensure that your comments on this IC are considered, we must receive them on or before October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments on this IC to Phadrea Ponds, Information Collection Coordinator, National Park Service, 1201 Oakridge Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 (mail); or [email protected] (email). Please reference Information Collection 1024-0262 in the subject line.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marcy Okada, National Park Service, 4175 Geist Road, Fairbanks, Alaska, 99709; [email protected] (email).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    Under the provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), subsistence harvests by local rural residents are considered to be the priority consumptive use of park resources. Community harvest assessments will support the NPS management priorities at GAAR, WRST, YUCH, WEAR, and ANIA that address consumptive use of park resources by NPS-qualified subsistence users. The information will be used by the NPS, the Federal Subsistence Board, the State of Alaska, and local/regional advisory councils in making recommendations and making decisions regarding the management of fish, wildlife, and plants in the region (e.g., seasons, harvest limits, and which communities have customarily and traditionally used various resources). The survey will document subsistence activities over the past year (January through December) for each sampled household. The head of household will be asked to respond for each household.

    II. Data

    OMB Number: 1024-062.

    Title: Community Harvest Assessments for Alaskan National Parks and Preserves.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement.

    Affected Public: General public and individual households.

    Respondent Obligation: Voluntary.

    Frequency of Collection: One-time.

    Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,793.

    Annual Burden Hours: 1,195 hours. We estimate the public reporting burden to be 40 minutes per completed survey response.

    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: We have not identified any “non-hour cost” burdens associated with this collection of information.

    III. Request for Comments

    We invite comments concerning this information collection on:

    • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Madonna L. Baucum, Information Collection Clearance Officer, National Park Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20404 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EH-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160 (Review)] Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From China; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year Reviews AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on prestressed concrete steel wire strand from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 4, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joanna Lo (202-205-1888), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this review may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background.—On August 4, 2015, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (80 FR 24976, May 1, 2015) of the subject five-year reviews was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any circumstances that would warrant conducting full reviews.1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)).

    1 A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.

    For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

    Staff report.—A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the reviews will be placed in the nonpublic record on September 2, 2015, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for these reviews. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission's rules.

    Written submissions.—As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the reviews and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution,2 and any party other than an interested party to the reviews may file written comments with the Secretary on what determination the Commission should reach in the reviews. Comments are due on or before September 8, 2015 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year reviews nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the reviews by September 8, 2015. However, should the Department of Commerce extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its reviews, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce's final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce's results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. Please be aware that the Commission's rules with respect to filing have changed. The most recent amendments took effect on July 25, 2014. See 79 FR 35920 (June 25, 2014), and the revised Commission Handbook on E-filing, available from the Commission's Web site at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    2 The Commission has found the responses submitted by Insteel Wire Products Company, Sumiden Wire Products Corporation, and WMC Steel, LLC to be individually adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)).

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    Authority:

    These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

    Issued: August 12, 2015.

    By order of the Commission.

    Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20301 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-15-026] Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    TIME AND DATE:

    August 20, 2015 at 11 a.m.

    PLACE:

    Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Agendas for future meetings: none.

    2. Minutes.

    3. Ratification List.

    4. Vote in Inv. No. 731-TA-130 (Fourth Review) (Chloropicrin from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determination and views of the Commission on August 31, 2015.

    5. Outstanding action jackets: none.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20503 Filed 8-14-15; 04:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-1047 (Second Review)] Ironing Tables From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year Review AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on ironing tables from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 4, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carolyn Carlson (202-205-3002), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this review may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background.—On August 4, 2015, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (80 FR 24968, May 1, 2015) of the subject five-year review was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)).

    1 A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.

    For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

    Staff report.—A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the review was placed in the nonpublic record on July 23, 2015, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for this review. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission's rules.

    Written submissions.—As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the review and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution,2 and any party other than an interested party to the review may file written comments with the Secretary on what determination the Commission should reach in the review. Comments are due on or before September 2, 2015 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year review nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the review by September 2, 2015. However, should the Department of Commerce extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its review, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce's final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce's results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. Please be aware that the Commission's rules with respect to filing have changed. The most recent amendments took effect on July 25, 2014. See 79 FR 35920 (June 25, 2014), and the revised Commission Handbook on E-filing, available from the Commission's Web site at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    2 The Commission has found the response submitted by Home Products International to be individually adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)).

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    Authority:

    This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

    Issued: August 12, 2015.

    By order of the Commission.

    Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20318 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-545-547 and 731-TA-1291-1297 (Preliminary)] Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom; Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-545-547 and 731-TA-1291-1297 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of certain hot-rolled steel flat products (“hot-rolled steel”) from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, provided for in subheadings 7208.10.15, 7208.10.30, 7208.10.60, 7208.25.30, 7208.25.60, 7208.26.00, 7208.27.00, 7208.36.00, 7208.37.00, 7208.38.00, 7208.39.00, 7208.40.60, 7208.53.00, 7208.54.00, 7208.90.00, 7210.70.30, 7210.90.90, 7211.14.00, 7211.19.15, 7211.19.20, 7211.19.30, 7211.19.45, 7211.19.60, 7211.19.75, 7211.90.00, 7212.40.10, 7212.40.50, 7212.50.00, 7225.11.00, 7225.19.00, 7225.30.30, 7225.30.70, 7225.40.70, 7225.99.00, 7226.11.10, 7226.11.90, 7226.19.10, 7226.19.90, 7226.91.50, 7226.91.70, 7226.91.80, and 7226.99.01 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less-than-fair-value and alleged to be subsidized by the governments of Brazil, Korea, and the United Kingdom. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by September 25, 2015. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by October 2, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 11, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Messer (202-3193) and Justin Enck (205-3363), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background.—These investigations are being instituted, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)), in response to petitions filed on August 11, 2015, by AK Steel Corporation (West Chester, Ohio), ArcelorMittal USA LLC (Chicago, Illinois), Nucor Corporation (Charlotte, North Carolina), SSAB Enterprises, LLC (Lisle, Illinois), Steel Dynamics, Inc. (Fort Wayne, Indiana), and United States Steel Corporation (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania).

    For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).

    Participation in the investigations and public service list.—Persons (other than petitioners) wishing to participate in the investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the Commission's rules, not later than seven days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Industrial users and (if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level) representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to these investigations upon the expiration of the period for filing entries of appearance.

    Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these investigations available to authorized applicants representing interested parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the investigations under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made not later than seven days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

    Conference.—The Commission's Director of Investigations has scheduled a conference in connection with these investigations for 9:30 a.m. on September 1, 2015, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. Requests to appear at the conference should be emailed to [email protected] and [email protected] (DO NOT FILE ON EDIS) on or before August 28, 2015. Parties in support of the imposition of countervailing and antidumping duties in these investigations and parties in opposition to the imposition of such duties will each be collectively allocated one hour within which to make an oral presentation at the conference. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the conference.

    Written submissions.—As provided in sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the Commission's rules, any person may submit to the Commission on or before September 4, 2015, a written brief containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the investigations. Parties may file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the conference. If briefs or written testimony contain BPI, they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. Please consult the Commission's rules, as amended, 76 FR 61937 (October 6, 2011) and the Commission's Handbook on Filing Procedures, 76 FR 62092 (October 6, 2011), available on the Commission's Web site at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    Authority:

    These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.

    Issued: August 12, 2015.

    By order of the Commission.

    Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20266 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Victor B. Williams, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On January 21, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to Victor B. Williams, M.D. (Respondent), of Little Rock, Arkansas. GX 1. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration BW6686464, and the denial of any pending application to renew or modify his registration, on the ground that he lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Arkansas, the State in which he is registered with DEA. Show Cause Order, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) & 824(a) (3)). Id.

    Specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged that on April 10, 2014, the Arkansas State Medical Board issued to Respondent an “Order and Notice of Hearing,” which revoked his medical license. Id. The Order then alleged that as a result of the revocation, Respondent is without authority to handle controlled substances in Arkansas, the State in which he is registered, and therefore, his registration is subject to revocation.1 Id. at 1 (citations omitted).

    1 The Show Cause Order also notified Respondent of his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the consequence of failing to elect either option. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43).

    As evidenced by the signed return receipt card, on January 27, 2015, the Show Cause Order was served on Respondent. GX 3. On February 3, 2015, Respondent, through his counsel, sent a letter acknowledging receipt of the Show Cause Order to the Office of Administrative Law Judges. GX 4. However, Respondent's counsel did not request a hearing on the allegations. See id. Thereafter, on February 19, 2015, the Government submitted a Request for Final Agency Action seeking a final order revoking Respondent's registration. See Government Request for Final Agency Action, at 5 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43(e)).

    On June 2, 2015, the Government represented to this office that Respondent's registration had expired on May 31, 2015 because he did not submit a renewal application at least 45 days before his registration's expiration date, as required by the Agency's regulation which is applicable to a registrant who has been served with an Order to Show Cause. See 21 CFR 1301.36(i). Moreover, according to the registration records of the Agency (of which I take official notice, 5 U.S.C. 556(e)), Respondent has not submitted a renewal application, whether timely or not, and his registration has been retired by the Agency. Accordingly, I find that Respondent's registration expired on May 31, 2015 and that there is no application pending before the Agency.

    It is well settled that “[i]f a registrant has not submitted a timely renewal application prior to the expiration date, then the registration expires and there is nothing to revoke.” Ronald J. Riegel, 63 FR 67132, 67133 (1998); see also William W. Nucklos, 73 FR 34330 (2008). Furthermore, because Respondent did not file a renewal application, there is no application to act upon. See Nucklos, 73 FR at 34330. Accordingly, because there is neither a registration, nor an application, to act upon, I hold that this case is now moot.

    Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that the Order to Show Cause issued to Victor B. Williams, M.D., be, and it hereby is, dismissed.

    Dated: August 10, 2015. Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20351 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration John R. Kregenow, D.D.S.; Decision and Order

    On October 29, 2014, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to John R. Kregenow, D.D.S. (Registrant), of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. GX 1, at 1. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration AK8212348, and the denial of any pending applications for renewal or modification of the registration, on the ground that he lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Wisconsin, the State in which he is registered with DEA. Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) & 824(a)(3)).

    The Show Cause Order specifically alleged that on September 3, 2014, the Wisconsin Dentistry Examining Board (hereinafter, the Board) issued an Order of Summary Suspension, suspending Registrant's dental license and that the Order “is still in effect.” Id. The Show Cause Order thus asserted that “DEA must revoke [Registrant's] registration based upon [his] lack of authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Wisconsin.” 1 Id. at 1-2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f) and 824(a) (3)).

    1 The Show Cause Order also notified Registrant of his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the consequence for failing to elect either option. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43).

    On November 6, 2014, a Diversion Investigator (DI) attempted to serve the Show Cause Order on Registrant by travelling to his residence but no one was home. GX 6, at 2. (Declaration of Diversion Investigator). The DI then left at Registrant's residence an envelope which contained a copy of the Show Cause Order, a Voluntary Surrender Form, and written “instructions describing [Registrant's] options regarding his . . . registration.” Id.

    The next day, the DI mailed a copy of the Show Cause Order by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to Registrant at his residence. Id. The same day, the DI also emailed an electronic copy of the Order to the two previous email addresses associated with his registration.2 Id.

    2 The Government provided no further information regarding the adequacy of its attempts to serve the Show Cause Order by email, and in any event, under the Agency's cases, except for where the intended recipient is a fugitive, email is to be used only after the traditional methods of service have been used and been ineffective at accomplishing service. See Emilio Luna, 77 FR 4829, 4830 (2012); Robert Leigh Kale, 76 FR 48898, 48899-900 (2011).

    On December 8, 2014, the DI received a return receipt card for the mailing which was signed by Registrant. Id. The card was dated December 3, 2014. Id., see also GX 5, at 2. Based on the signed return receipt card, I find that the Government accomplished service on December 3, 2014.

    Based on the Government's representation that since the date of service, neither Registrant, nor any person purporting to represent him, “has requested a hearing or otherwise corresponded with DEA” regarding the Show Cause Order, and finding that more than 30 days have now passed since the date of service, I find that Registrant has waived his right to either request a hearing on the allegations of the Show Cause Order or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing. See 21 CFR 1301.43(c) & (d). I therefore issue this Decision and Final Order based on the record submitted by the Government. See 21 CFR 1301.43(e). I make the following findings.

    Findings of Fact

    Registrant is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration AK8212348, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner, at the registered address of 6015 West Forest Home Ave., Unit 1, Old Grove Shopping Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. GX 2. His registration does not expire until December 31, 2015. Id.

    On September 3, 2014, the Board summarily suspended Registrant's dental license, finding “probable cause to believe [he] violated the provisions of Wis. Stat. Ch. 447” and that “the public health, safety or welfare imperatively requires emergency action.” GX 3, at 10-11. While Registrant was entitled to a hearing to challenge the summary suspension, id. at 11, on March 11, 2015, Registrant waived his right to a hearing on the allegations and consented to the entry by the Board of a Final Decision and Order revoking his medical license. Stipulation, at 1, In re John R. Kregenow, D.D.S . (Wis. Dent. Exam'ng. Bd. 2015).

    On May 6, 2015, the Board issued its Final Decision and Order, revoking Registrant's license to practice dentistry.3 Final Decision and Order, at 2, In re Kregenow. The Board found that Registrant had engaged in unprofessional conduct, which included, inter alia, “[a]dministering, dispensing, prescribing, supplying or obtaining controlled substances . . . other than in the course of legitimate practice, or as otherwise prohibited by law.” Wis. Admin. Code § DE 5.02(6) (cited in Final Decision and Order, at 2). The Board further found that Registrant had “elected to retire from the practice of dentistry” and revoked his license to “ensure protection of the public, rehabilitation of Respondent and general deterrence.” Id.

    3 This Order was obtained through an online search of the Board of Dentistry's Web site. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), an agency “may take official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding—even in the final decision.” U.S. Dept. of Justice, Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979); see also 5 U.S.C. 556(e); 21 CFR 1316.59(e).

    Based on the Board's order, I find that Registrant no longer possesses authority to dispense controlled substances in Wisconsin, the State in which he is registered under the Controlled Substances Act.

    Discussion

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823, “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” Moreover, the Agency has long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration. See James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, Hooper v. Holder, 481 Fed. App'x. 826 (4th Cir. 2012).

    This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined “[t]he term `practitioner' [to] mean[ ] a . . . dentist . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the Act, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he engages in professional practice. See, e.g., Sharad C. Patel, 80 FR 28693, 28695 (2015); Calvin Ramsey, 76 FR 20034, 20036 (2011); Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988).

    Thus, because Registrant no longer possesses lawful authority to practice dentistry in the Wisconsin, see Wis. Stat. §§ 447.03(1) & 961.01(a), the State where he is currently registered, I will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.

    Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 28 CFR 0.100(b) I order that DEA Certificate of Registration AK8212348 issued to John R. Kregenow, D.D.S., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any application of John R. Kregenow, D.D.S., to renew or modify this registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective immediately.4

    4 For the same reasons that the Wisconsin Board summarily suspended Registrant's dental license, I conclude that the public interest requires that this Order be effective immediately. See 21 CFR 1316.67.

    Dated: August 10, 2015. Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20352 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Ronald A. Green, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On February 6, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Ronald A. Green, M.D. (Registrant), of Houston, Texas. GX 1. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration FG1729699, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner, as well as the denial of any pending applications to renew or modify his registration, on the ground that he does not “have authority to handle controlled substances in” Texas, “the State in which [he is] registered with the DEA.” Id.

    The Show Cause Order specifically alleged that on December 10, 2014, the Disciplinary Panel of the Texas Medical Board (TMB) issued an Order of Temporary Suspension, which suspended his medical license the same day. Id. The Show Cause Order further alleged that as a consequence of the Board's order, Registrant is currently without authority to handle controlled substances in Texas, the State in which he holds his DEA registration.1 Id.

    1 The Show Cause Order also informed Registrant of his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement of position on the matters alleged in the Order while waiving his right to a hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the consequence of failing to elect either option. GX 1, at 1-2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43).

    On February 11, 2015, a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) initially attempted to personally serve Registrant by travelling to his registered location. GX 4, at 1. However, the DI found that his practice was closed and was told by employees of a bank located across the hall that no one had seen Registrant recently. Id. Thereafter, the DI obtained the address of Registrant's residence from the Texas Department of Public Safety and on February 17, went to his residence. Id. at 2. The DI rang the doorbell and knocked on the door several times but received no response. Id. The DI then slid a copy of the Show Cause Order under the front door. Id.

    Three months later (on May 20, 2015), the Office of Administrative Law Judges received a fax from Registrant which included a document entitled “Response to First Amended Complaint and Motion to Dismiss,” which he apparently filed in the proceeding brought against him by the Texas Medical Board. Registrant did not, however, request a hearing on the Show Cause Order. See 21 CFR 1301.43(a) & (d). Moreover, to the extent Registrant submitted this document as his statement of position, see id. § 1301.43(c), his filing does not contain any explanation for why good cause exists to excuse its untimeliness. Id. §§ 1301.43(d), 1316.47(b).

    In the meantime, on April 7, 2015, the Government submitted a Request for Final Agency Action along with the investigative record, which it subsequently supplemented by providing a copy of Registrant's filing with the Office of Administrative Law Judges. In its Request, the Government asserts that Registrant has waived his right to a hearing. Request for Final Agency Action, at 4.

    Based on my review of the record, I find that Registrant was properly served with the Show Cause Order. I further find that Registrant has waived his right to a hearing, as well as his right to submit a statement of position on the allegations of the Show Cause Order. Id. § 1301.44(d). I make the following findings.

    Findings

    Registrant is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration FG1729699, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner, at the registered address of: Paradigm Center for Integrative Medicine, 7505 Fannin, Suite 120, Houston, TX 77054. GX 2. This registration is due to expire on September 30, 2015. Id.

    On December 10, 2014, a Disciplinary Panel of the TMB issued an Order of Temporary Suspension, which suspended Registrant's medical license, based upon its finding that Registrant's “continuation in the practice of medicine would constitute a continuing threat to public welfare.” GX 3, at 3, 5.2 According to the TMB's Web site, the Order remains in effect as of this date. See http://reg.tmb.state.tx.us/OnLineVerif/Phys_ReportVerif_new.asp. Accordingly, I find that Registrant is currently without authority under the laws of the State of Texas to dispense controlled substances.

    2 The TMB's Order contains numerous conclusions of law based on Registrant's violations of the Texas Medical Practice Act, including that he prescribed, administered, or dispensed controlled substance for non-therapeutic purposes and “in a manner inconsistent” with the Controlled Substances Act and Texas law, that he failed to comply with the Board's regulations regarding the operation of pain management clinics, that he failed to adhere to guidelines and requirements for the treatment of pain, and that he wrote prescriptions for known abusers of narcotics. GX 3, at 3-5.

    Discussion

    The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) grants the Attorney General authority to revoke a registration “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended [or] revoked . . . and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . distribution [or] dispensing of controlled substances.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3). Based on the CSA's provisions which define the term “practitioner” and set forth the requirement for obtaining a registration as such, DEA has long held that a practitioner must be currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the “jurisdiction in which he practices” in order to maintain a DEA registration. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21)(“The term `practitioner' means a physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.”); see also id. § 823(f) (“The Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . to dispense . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.”).

    As these provisions make plain, possessing authority under state law to dispense controlled substances is an essential condition for holding a DEA registration. See David W. Wang, 72 FR 54297, 54298 (2007); Sheran Arden Yeates, 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988). And based on these provisions, the Agency has also “held that revocation is warranted even where a practitioner's state authority has been summarily suspended and the State has yet to provide the practitioner with a hearing to challenge the State's action at which he . . . may ultimately prevail.” Kamal Tiwari, 76 FR 71604, 71606 (2011) (citing cases).

    Here, the evidence shows that Registrant's medical license has been suspended by the Texas Medical Board. I therefore hold that Registrant no longer holds authority under the laws of Texas, the State in which he is registered, to dispense controlled substances and that therefore, he is not entitled to maintain his DEA registration. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), 824(a)(3). Accordingly, I will order that his registration be revoked.

    Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration FG1729699 issued to Ronald A. Green, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any application of Ronald A. Green, M.D., to renew or modify his registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective immediately.3

    3 Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law which led the TMB to