Federal Register Vol. 80, No.160,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 160 (August 19, 2015)

Page Range50189-50542
FR Document

80_FR_160
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 50539 - National Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve Week, 2015PDF
80 FR 50379 - Notice of Public Meetings for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Test Sites and Center of Excellence; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 50377 - Request for Public Comments To Compile the National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade BarriersPDF
80 FR 50269 - Permanent Advisory Committee To Advise the U.S. Commissioners to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission; Meeting AnnouncementPDF
80 FR 50381 - BNSF Railway Company-Abandonment Exemption-in King County, Wash.PDF
80 FR 50278 - Applicability Determination Index (ADI) Database System Recent Posting: Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone Protection ProgramPDF
80 FR 50277 - Request for Public Comments on the List of Candidates for EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) Agricultural Science CommitteePDF
80 FR 50276 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Establishing No-Discharge Zones (NDZs) Under Clean Water Act § 312 (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 50250 - Amendments to Regional Consistency RegulationsPDF
80 FR 50339 - Pendency for Request for Approval of Special Withdrawal Liability Rules: The Service Employees International Union Local 1 Cleveland Pension PlanPDF
80 FR 50240 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Major Source Permitting State Implementation PlanPDF
80 FR 50199 - Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Removal of Certain Vacated ElementsPDF
80 FR 50287 - Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide RegistrationsPDF
80 FR 50248 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; El Paso Particulate Matter Contingency MeasuresPDF
80 FR 50275 - Notification of Public Teleconferences of the Science Advisory Board Radiation Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 50266 - Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
80 FR 50265 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Correction to Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2012PDF
80 FR 50264 - Potassium Permanganate From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013PDF
80 FR 50375 - Advisory Committee on International Postal and Delivery Services September 2015 MeetingPDF
80 FR 50212 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2015-2016 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Inseason AdjustmentsPDF
80 FR 50375 - Notice of Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 50288 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
80 FR 50327 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 50318 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Loan Guarantee Recovery Fund Established Pursuant to the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996PDF
80 FR 50268 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Bay Watershed Education and Training Program National Evaluation SystemPDF
80 FR 50288 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 50291 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
80 FR 50290 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
80 FR 50240 - Disguised Payments for Services; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 50298 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; National Toxicology Program (NTP) Level of Concern Categories Study (NIEHS)PDF
80 FR 50297 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Information Program on Clinical Trials: Maintaining a Registry and Results Databank (NLM)PDF
80 FR 50328 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Renew an Information Collection for the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship ProgramPDF
80 FR 50325 - Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) RequirementsPDF
80 FR 50324 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change, of a Previously Approved Collection Applicant Information Form (1-783)PDF
80 FR 50239 - Exception From Passive Income for Certain Foreign Insurance Companies; HearingPDF
80 FR 50274 - Curtis/Palmer Hydroelectric Company, LP; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
80 FR 50272 - PacifiCorp; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the Alternative Licensing Process, and Requesting Cooperating Agency StatusPDF
80 FR 50272 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 50271 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
80 FR 50382 - Agency Information Collection: (Per Diem for Nursing Home Care of Veterans in State Homes; Per Diem for Domiciliary Adult Day Health Care of Veterans in State Homes)PDF
80 FR 50326 - Proposed Extension of Existing Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 50376 - Generalized System of Preferences (GSP): Notice of Initiation of the 2015 Annual GSP Product and Country Practices Review; Deadlines for Filing PetitionsPDF
80 FR 50319 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
80 FR 50238 - Petition Requesting Rulemaking on Products Containing Organohalogen Flame RetardantsPDF
80 FR 50299 - National Institute on Aging: Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 50299 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 50299 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 50300 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences: Notice of MeetingsPDF
80 FR 50300 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 50299 - Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health: Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 50304 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 50313 - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 50262 - United States Standards for Grades of Canned Baked BeansPDF
80 FR 50193 - Onions Grown in Certain Designated Counties in Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon; Decreased Assessment RatePDF
80 FR 50191 - Irish Potatoes Grown in Southeastern States; Suspension of Marketing Order ProvisionsPDF
80 FR 50320 - Amended Meeting Schedule for the Gateway National Recreation Area Fort Hancock 21st Century Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 50267 - International Pacific Halibut Commission AppointmentsPDF
80 FR 50314 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 50313 - Texas; Amendment No. 12 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
80 FR 50225 - Paper and Paper-Based Packaging Promotion, Research and Information Order; Late Payment and Interest Charges on Past Due AssessmentsPDF
80 FR 50189 - Apricots Grown in Designated Counties in Washington; Decreased Assessment RatePDF
80 FR 50263 - Availability of Updated FSIS Food Standards and Labeling Policy BookPDF
80 FR 50270 - Presidential Task Force on Combating Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing and Seafood Fraud Action Plan; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
80 FR 50228 - Classes of PoultryPDF
80 FR 50329 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 50293 - Center for Devices and Radiological Health Participation in International Medical Device Regulators Forum, Regulated Product Submission, Table of Contents Pilot ProgramPDF
80 FR 50295 - Medical Devices; Export Certificates; Food and Drug Administration Export Reform and Enhancement Act of 1996; Certification FeesPDF
80 FR 50273 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 50275 - Notice of Study Plan Meeting; Yuba County Water AgencyPDF
80 FR 50271 - New Hampshire Transmission, LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding, Setting Refund Effective Date, and Due Date for InterventionPDF
80 FR 50273 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 50370 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Adopt New Rule 8.17 To Provide a Process for an Expedited Suspension Proceeding and Rule 12.15 To Prohibit Layering and Spoofing on BATS Exchange, Inc.PDF
80 FR 50348 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to Finance Procedures To Add Clearstream Banking as a Triparty Collateral Service ProviderPDF
80 FR 50369 - Nile Capital Investment Trust, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 50212 - NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 50358 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of the 1-3 Month Enhanced Short Duration ETF, a Series of Plus TrustPDF
80 FR 50365 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 79A To Delete Supplementary Material .20 Requiring Prior Floor Official Approval Before a Designated Market Maker Can Initiate Certain Trades More Than One or Two Dollars Away From the Last SalePDF
80 FR 50350 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 79A-Equities To Delete Supplementary Material .20 Requiring Prior Floor Official Approval Before a Designated Market Maker Can Initiate Certain Trades More Than One or Two Dollars Away From the Last SalePDF
80 FR 50347 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Expand FINRA's Alternative Trading System (“ATS”) Transparency Initiative To Publish OTC Equity Volume Executed Outside ATSsPDF
80 FR 50341 - Janus Investment Fund, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 50347 - Pulteney Street Capital Management, LLC and PSP Family of Funds; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 50354 - Ivy NextShares, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 50356 - FEG Absolute Access TEI Fund LLC and FEG Investors, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 50349 - ALPS ETMF Trust, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 50196 - Special Local Regulations; Eighth Coast Guard District Annual and Recurring Marine Events UpdatePDF
80 FR 50268 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 50195 - Intercountry Adoptions: Regulatory Change To Prevent Accreditation and Approval Renewal Requests From Coming Due at the Same TimePDF
80 FR 50295 - Arthritis Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 50292 - Obstetrics and Gynecology Device Panel of the Medical Device Advisory Committee; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 50318 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension, Without Change, of an Existing Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 50379 - Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP15-003PDF
80 FR 50205 - Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2008 Lead, and 2010 NO2PDF
80 FR 50382 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 50203 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Rhode Island; Rhode Island Low Emission Vehicle ProgramPDF
80 FR 50320 - Information Collection Activities: Relief or Reduction in Royalty Rates; Submitted for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 50270 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive Patent LicensePDF
80 FR 50314 - West Virginia; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 50306 - Oglala Sioux Tribe; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 50301 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 50306 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 50235 - Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace; Van Nuys, CAPDF
80 FR 50237 - Proposed Revocation of Class E Airspace; Burbank, CAPDF
80 FR 50233 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 50230 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 50324 - Hearings of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committees on the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the Federal Rules of EvidencePDF
80 FR 50207 - Methane Sulfonic Acid; Exemption from the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
80 FR 50461 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending MachinesPDF
80 FR 50385 - Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production RTR and Standards of Performance for Phosphate ProcessingPDF

Issue

80 160 Wednesday, August 19, 2015 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Decreased Assessment Rates: Apricots Grown in Designated Counties in Washington, 50189-50191 2015-20436 Onions Grown in Certain Designated Counties in Idaho, and Malheur County, OR, 50193-50195 2015-20444 Irish Potatoes Grown in Southeastern States: Suspension of Marketing Order Provisions, 50191-50192 2015-20443 PROPOSED RULES Paper and Paper-Based Packaging Promotion, Research and Information Order: Late Payment and Interest Charges on Past Due Assessments, 50225-50228 2015-20437 NOTICES U.S. Standards for Canned Baked Beans, 50262-50263 2015-20445 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Food Safety and Inspection Service

AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Exclusive Patent Licenses, 50270-50271 2015-20368 Safety Enviromental Enforcement Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50320-50324 2015-20369 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50288-50292 2015-20479 2015-20477 2015-20478 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Special Local Regulations: Eighth Coast Guard District Annual and Recurring Marine Events Update, 50196-50198 2015-20407 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission PROPOSED RULES Petitions: Requesting Rulemaking on Products Containing Organohalogen Flame Retardants, 50238-50239 2015-20454 Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Programs: Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines, 50462-50538 2015-19919
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2008 Lead, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Colorado, 50205-50207 2015-20377 Rhode Island; Rhode Island Low Emission Vehicle Program, 50203-50205 2015-20373 Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production RTR and Standards of Performance for Phosphate Processing, 50386-50460 2015-19732 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Removal of Certain Vacated Elements, 50199-50203 2015-20501 Tolerance Exemptions: Methane Sulfonic Acid, 50207-50212 2015-20252 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Louisiana; Major Source Permitting, 50240-50248 2015-20504 Texas; El Paso Particulate Matter Contingency Measures, 50248-50250 2015-20499 Regional Consistency Regulations, 50250-50261 2015-20506 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Establishing No-Discharge Zones under the Clean Water Act, 50276-50277 2015-20508 Applicability Determination Index Database: Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, etc., 50278-50287 2015-20514 Meetings: Science Advisory Board Radiation Advisory Committee, 50275-50276 2015-20498 Nominees for Science Advisory Board Agricultural Science Committee, 50277-50278 2015-20511 Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations, 50287-50288 2015-20500 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: The Boeing Company Airplanes, 50230-50235 2015-20265 2015-20267 Amendments of Class D Airspace: Van Nuys, CA, 50235-50237 2015-20295 Revocations of Class E Airspace: Burbank, CA, 50237-50238 2015-20294 NOTICES Meetings: Unmanned Aircraft Systems Test Sites and Center of Excellence; Correction, 50379 2015-20525 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Flood Hazard Determinations, 50301-50318 2015-20342 2015-20343 2015-20439 2015-20447 Major Disaster Declarations: Texas; Amendment No. 12, 50313-50314 2015-20438 Major Disasters and Related Determinations: Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 50313 2015-20446 Oglala Sioux Tribe, 50306 2015-20345 West Virginia, 50314 2015-20347 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Curtis/Palmer Hydroelectric Co., 50274-50275 2015-20465 PacifiCorp, 50272 2015-20464 Combined Filings, 50271-50274 2015-20424 2015-20427 2015-20461 2015-20462 Institution of Section 206 Proceeding, Setting Refund Effective Date, and Due Date for Intervention: New Hampshire Transmission, LLC, 50271 2015-20425 Meetings: Yuba County Water Agency, 50275 2015-20426 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 50288 2015-20489 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Center for Devices and Radiological Health Participation in International Medical Device Regulators Forum, Regulated Product Submission, Table of Contents Pilot Program, 50293-50295 2015-20430 Medical Devices; Export Certificates: Export Reform and Enhancement Act; Certification Fees, 50295-50297 2015-20429 Meetings: Arthritis Advisory Committee, 50295 2015-20398 Obstetrics and Gynecology Device Panel of the Medical Device Advisory Committee; Correction, 50292-50293 2015-20397 Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service PROPOSED RULES Classes of Poultry, 50228-50230 2015-20433 NOTICES Updated FSIS Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book, 50263-50264 2015-20435 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Loan Guarantee Recovery Fund established pursuant to the Church Arson Prevention Act, 50318-50319 2015-20487 Interior Interior Department See

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Disguised Payments for Services; Correction, 50240 2015-20476 Exception from Passive Income for Certain Foreign Insurance Companies; Hearing, 50239-50240 2015-20468 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 50266-50267 2015-20495 Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China, 50265-50266 2015-20494 Potassium Permanganate from the People's Republic of China, 50264-50265 2015-20493 Judicial Conference Judicial Conference of the United States NOTICES Hearings: Advisory Committees on the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence, 50324 2015-20254 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Applicant Information Form, 50324-50325 2015-20469 Labor Department Labor Department See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

See

Workers Compensation Programs Office

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Corrections, 50212 2015-20418 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50327-50328 2015-20488 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petitions, 50379-50381 2015-20380 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Information Program on Clinical Trials: Maintaining a Registry and Results Databank, 50297-50298 2015-20473 National Toxicology Program Level of Concern Categories Study, 50298-50299 2015-20474 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 50300-50301 2015-20449 National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 50300 2015-20450 National Human Genome Research Institute, 50299 2015-20451 National Institute on Aging, 50299 2015-20452 2015-20453 Office of the Director, 50299-50300 2015-20448 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery: 2015-2016 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Inseason Adjustments, 50212-50224 2015-20491 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Bay Watershed Education and Training Program National Evaluation System, 50268-50269 2015-20485 International Pacific Halibut Commission Appointments, 50267-50268 2015-20440 Meetings: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 50268 2015-20405 Permanent Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commissioners to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, 50269-50270 2015-20523 Presidential Task Force on Combating Illegal Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Fraud Action Plan, 50270 2015-20434 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Meetings: Gateway National Recreation Area Fort Hancock 21st Century Advisory Committee; Amendments, 50320 2015-20441 National Register of Historic Places; Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 50319-50320 2015-20455 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50329-50339 2015-20365 2015-20431 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program, 50328-50329 2015-20471 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard, 50325-50326 2015-20470 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation NOTICES Pendency for Request for Approval of Special Withdrawal Liability Rules: Service Employees International Union Local 1 Cleveland Pension Plan, 50339-50341 2015-20505 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: National Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve Week (Proc. 8307), 50539-50542 2015-20661 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: ALPS ETMF Trust, et al., 50349-50350 2015-20409 FEG Absolute Access TEI Fund LLC and FEG Investors, LLC, 50356-50358 2015-20410 Ivy NextShares, et al., 50354-50356 2015-20411 Janus Investment Fund, et al., 50341-50347 2015-20413 Nile Capital Investment Trust, et al., 50369-50370 2015-20419 Pulteney Street Capital Management, LLC and PSP Family of Funds, 50347-50348 2015-20412 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 50370-50375 2015-20421 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 50347 2015-20414 ICE Clear Europe Limited, 50348-50349 2015-20420 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 50358-50365 2015-20417 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 50365-50369 2015-20416 NYSE MKT LLC, 50350-50354 2015-20415 State Department State Department RULES Intercountry Adoptions: Prevention of Accreditation and Approval Renewal Requests from Coming Due at the Same Time, 50195-50196 2015-20402 NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on International Postal and Delivery Services September 2015, 50375-50376 2015-20492 Preparation for International Maritime Organization's Sub-Committee on Carriage of Cargoes and Containers, 50375 2015-20490 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: BNSF Railway Co., King County, WA, 50381-50382 2015-20519 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, 50377-50379 2015-20524 Petitions: 2015 Annual Generalized System of Preferences Product and Country Practices Review; Deadlines, 50376-50377 2015-20456 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50382 2015-20375
Immigration U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50318 2015-20396 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Per Diem for Nursing Home Care of Veterans in State Homes; Per Diem for Domiciliary Adult Day Health Care of Veterans in State Homes, 50382-50383 2015-20458 Workers' Workers Compensation Programs Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50326-50327 2015-20457 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Environmental Protection Agency, 50386-50460 2015-19732 Part III Energy Department, 50462-50538 2015-19919 Part IV Presidential Documents, 50539-50542 2015-20661 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.

80 160 Wednesday, August 19, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 922 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-15-0033; FV15-922-1 IR] Apricots Grown in Designated Counties in Washington; Decreased Assessment Rate AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Interim rule with request for comments.

SUMMARY:

This rule implements a recommendation from the Washington Apricot Marketing Committee (Committee) for a decrease in the assessment rate from $1.50 to $0.75 per ton of Washington apricots handled for the 2015-2016 and subsequent fiscal periods. The Committee locally administers the marketing order and is comprised of producers and handlers of apricots grown in designated counties in Washington. Assessments upon apricot handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal period begins April 1 and ends March 31. The new assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended or terminated.

DATES:

Effective August 20, 2015. Comments received by October 19, 2015, will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this 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: www.regulations.gov. Comments should reference the docket 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: www.regulations.gov. All comments submitted in response to this 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:

Teresa Hutchinson, Marketing Specialist, or Gary Olson, Regional Director, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326-2724; Fax: (503) 326-7440; 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 rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 132 and Order No. 922 (7 CFR 922), as amended, regulating the handling of apricots grown in designated counties in Washington, 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 rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, apricot handlers in designated counties in Washington are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable Washington apricots beginning April 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 rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2015-2016 and subsequent fiscal periods from $1.50 to $0.75 per ton of Washington apricots handled under the order.

The Washington apricot marketing order provides authority for the Committee, 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 Committee are producers and handlers of apricots in designated counties in Washington. They are familiar with the Committee'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 2013-2014 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and the USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.

The Committee met on May 12, 2015, and unanimously recommended expenditures of $7,610 for the 2015-2016 fiscal period. In comparison, the previous fiscal period's budgeted expenditures were $7,095. The Committee also unanimously recommended an assessment rate of $0.75 per ton of apricots. The recommended assessment rate of $0.75 is $0.75 lower than the current rate of $1.50 per ton.

The Committee believes that decreasing the assessment rate will allow the Committee to fund its financial obligations and reduce its current monetary reserve of $10,353. If the current assessment rate was continued, then the Committee's monetary reserve would exceed the maximum permitted by the order of approximately one fiscal period's operational expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015-2016 fiscal period include $3,000 for the management/administration fee, $2,500 for the annual audit review, $1,200 for Committee travel, and $500 for computer tech services, software, and equipment. In comparison, major expenditures for the 2014-2015 fiscal period included $3,000 for the management/administration fee, $2,500 for the annual audit review, $1,000 for Committee travel, and $50 for computer tech services, software, and equipment.

Committee members estimated the 2015 fresh apricot production to be approximately 5,800 tons. The Committee's recommended assessment rate was then derived by dividing the 2015-2016 anticipated expenses by the expected shipments of Washington apricots, while also taking into account the Committee's monetary reserve. The recommended assessment rate of $0.75 per ton of apricots multiplied by the 5,800 tons of estimated 2015 Washington apricot shipments would generate $4,350 in handler assessments. The projected revenue from handler assessments, along with funds from the Committee's monetary reserve of $10,353, will be adequate to cover the 2015-2016 budgeted expenses of $7,610. The Committee's monetary reserve is expected to be approximately $7,093 at the end of the 2015-2016 fiscal period which is within the maximum permitted by the order of approximately one fiscal period's operational expenses.

The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.

Although this assessment rate is effective for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of the Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2015-2016 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods will be reviewed, and continue to be 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 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 100 producers of apricots in the production area and approximately 17 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) (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.

The National Agricultural Statistics Service reported that in 2014 the Washington apricot total utilization (including both fresh and processed markets) of 8,500 tons sold for an average of $1,080 per ton. Consequently, the total farm-gate value in 2014 was approximately $9,180,000. Based on the number of producers in the production area (100), the 2014 average revenue from the sale of apricots is estimated at approximately $91,800 per producer. In addition, based on information from the USDA's Market News Service, 2014 f.o.b. prices for WA No. 1 apricots ranged from $20.00 to $26.00 per 24-pound loose-pack container, and from $22.00 to $30.00 for 2-layer tray-pack containers. Using average price and shipment information provided by the Committee, it is determined that each of the Washington apricot handlers currently ship less than $7,000,000 worth of apricots on an annual basis. In view of the foregoing, it can be concluded that the majority of producers and handlers of Washington apricots may be classified as small entities.

This rule decreases the assessment rate established by the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2015-2016 and subsequent fiscal periods from $1.50 to $0.75 per ton of apricots handled under the order's authority. The Committee also unanimously recommended 2015-2016 expenditures of $7,610. With a 2015-2016 Washington apricot crop estimate of 5,800 fresh market tons, the Committee anticipates assessment income of approximately $4,350. Income derived from handler assessments, along with funds from the Committee's monetary reserve, will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses for the 2015-2016 fiscal period. At this assessment rate and expense level, the Committee's monetary reserve will approximate $7,093 by March 30, 2016, which is within the maximum permitted by the order of approximately one fiscal period's operational expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015-2016 fiscal period include $3,000 for the management/administration fee, $2,500 for the annual audit review, $1,200 for Committee travel, and $500 for computer tech services, software, and equipment. In comparison, major expenditures for the 2014-2015 fiscal period included $3,000 for the management/administration fee, $2,500 for the annual audit review, $1,000 for Committee travel, and $50 for computer tech services, software, and equipment.

The Committee discussed alternatives to this rule, including alternative expenditure levels. Although lower assessment rates were considered, none were selected because they would not generate sufficient income to administer the order.

A review of historical crop and price information, as well as preliminary information pertaining to the 2015-2016 fiscal period, indicates that the producer price could average approximately $1,000 per ton for fresh Washington apricots. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2015-2016 fiscal period as a percentage of total producer revenue is 0.08 percent for Washington apricots.

This action decreases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers. Decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Washington apricot industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the May 12, 2015, meeting was a public meeting, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim 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. 0581-0189. 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 action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Washington apricot 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 rule.

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

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect, and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The 2015-2016 fiscal period began on April 1, 2015, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable apricots handled during such fiscal period; (2) the action decreases the assessment rate for assessable apricots beginning with the 2015-2016 fiscal period; (3) handlers are aware of this action, which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years; and (4) this interim rule provides a 60-day comment period, and all comments timely received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 922

Apricots, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 922 is amended as follows:

PART 922—APRICOTS GROWN IN DESIGNATED COUNTIES IN WASHINGTON 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 922 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 601-674.

2. Section 922.235 is revised to read as follows:
§ 922.235 Assessment rate.

On and after April 1, 2015, an assessment rate of $0.75 per ton is established for the Washington Apricot Marketing Committee.

Dated: August 13, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-20436 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Parts 953 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-14-0011; FV14-953-1 FIR] Irish Potatoes Grown in Southeastern States; Suspension of Marketing Order Provisions AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that continued the previous suspension of the marketing order for Irish potatoes grown in Southeastern states (order). The interim rule continued the suspension of all provisions of the order, and the rules and regulations implemented thereunder, through March 1, 2017, as requested by representatives of the Virginia/North Carolina Irish potato industry. This provides the industry more time to consider changes which could affect the need for the order. If the industry does not petition to have the order reactivated by the end of the suspension period, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) will propose to terminate the order.

DATES:

Effective August 20, 2015 through March 1, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Small businesses may obtain information on complying with this and other marketing order and agreement regulations by viewing a guide at the following Web site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide; or 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 rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 104 and Marketing Order No. 953, both as amended (7 CFR part 953), regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Southeastern states, 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.”

USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

The handling of Irish potatoes grown in Southeastern states is regulated by 7 CFR part 953. Prior to this change, the marketing order, and the rules and regulations implemented thereunder, had been suspended until March 1, 2014. Even though the Southeastern Potato Committee does not function under the suspended order and regulations, representatives of the Virginia/North Carolina Irish potato industry met on December 18, 2013, and requested that the suspension of all provisions of the order, and the rules and regulations implemented thereunder, be continued through March 1, 2017. This gives the industry more time to consider the need for the order. Therefore, this rule continues in effect the rule that suspended, through March 1, 2017, the provisions of Federal Marketing Order No. 953 and the rules and regulations issued thereunder. If the industry does not petition to have the order reactivated by the end of the suspension period, AMS will propose to terminate the order.

In an interim rule published in the Federal Register on April 1, 2015, and effective on April 2, 2015, (80 FR 17307, Doc. No. AMS-FV-14-0011, FV14-953-1 IR), 7 CFR 953 was suspended through March 1, 2017.

Final 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 action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business 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 10 handlers of Irish potatoes grown in Southeastern states who are subject to regulation under the order and approximately 20 potato producers in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

Using prices reported by AMS' Market News Service, the average f.o.b. price for Southeastern potatoes for the 2012-13 marketing season was around $25 per hundredweight. USDA has estimated production for the 2012-13 season at approximately 600,000 hundredweight of potatoes. Based on this information, average annual receipts for handlers would be less than $7,000,000. Information provided by the National Agricultural Statistics Service indicates that the average producer price for Irish potatoes grown in North Carolina and Virginia in 2012 was approximately $12.16 per hundredweight. Considering estimated production, average producer revenue would be about $400,000 for the 2012-13 season. Therefore, the majority of Southeastern potato handlers and producers may be classified as small entities.

This rule continues in effect the action that continued the previous suspension of the order and the associated rules and regulations through March 1, 2017. The continued suspension gives the industry more time to consider the need for the order. If the industry does not petition to have the order reactivated by the end of the suspension period, AMS will publish a proposal to terminate the order. Authority for this action is provided in section 8c(16)(A) of the Act.

Suspension of the order and its corresponding regulations relieves handlers of quality, inspection, and assessment burdens during the suspension period. Also, handler reports will not be required. Suspension of the order is therefore expected to reduce the regulatory burden on handlers and growers of all sizes.

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 Vegetable and Specialty Crops. 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 rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Southeastern Irish potato 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. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.

Further, the industry's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Southeastern Irish potato industry and interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in industry deliberations. The December 18, 2013, meeting was an open meeting and entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before June 1, 2015. No comments were received. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.

To view the interim rule, go to: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=AMS-FV-14-0011-0001.

This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13175, and 13563; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).

After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the Federal Register (80 FR 17307, April 1, 2015) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 953

Marketing agreements, Potatoes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, the interim rule that suspended 7 CFR part 953 and that was published at 80 FR 17307 on April 1, 2015, is adopted as a final rule, without change.

Dated: August 13, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-20443 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 958 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-15-0027; FV15-958-1 IR] Onions Grown in Certain Designated Counties in Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon; Decreased Assessment Rate AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Interim rule with request for comments.

SUMMARY:

This rule implements a recommendation from the Idaho-Eastern Oregon Onion Committee (Committee) for a decrease in the assessment rate established for the 2015-2016 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.10 to $0.05 per hundredweight of onions handled under the marketing order (order). The Committee locally administers the order and is comprised of producers and handlers of onions operating within the area of production. Assessments upon onion handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal period begins July 1 and ends June 30. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.

DATES:

Effective August 20, 2015. Comments received by October 19, 2015, will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this 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 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:

Sue Coleman, Marketing Specialist, or Gary D. Olson, Regional Director, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326-2724, Fax: (503) 326-7440, 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 rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 130 and Order No. 958, both as amended (7 CFR part 958), regulating the handling of onions grown in designated counties in Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon, 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 rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, Idaho-Eastern Oregon onion handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable onions beginning July 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 rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2015-2016 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.10 to $0.05 per hundredweight of onions.

The Idaho-Eastern Oregon onion marketing order provides authority for the Committee, 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 Committee are producers and handlers of Idaho-Eastern Oregon onions. They are familiar with the Committee'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 2005-2006 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA. The Committee met on April 21, 2015, and recommended 2015-2016 expenditures of $705,473 and an assessment rate of $0.05 per hundredweight of onions. Ten Committee members voted for this change, one voted against, and there were no abstentions.

In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $1,173,944. The assessment rate of $0.05 is $0.05 lower than the rate currently in effect. The Committee's recommendation was in response to a request from handlers and growers to reduce promotion expenditures from $635,000 to $250,000, and to allow handlers to keep $0.05 per hundredweight to spend on their own branded promotions.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015-2016 year include $6,000 for committee expenses, $115,412 for salary expenses, $67,810 for travel/office expenses, $466,251 for domestic and export promotions and production research expenses, and $50,000 for marketing order contingency. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2014-2015 were $6,000, $112,124, $107,810, $898,010, and $50,000, respectively.

The Committee based its recommended assessment rate decrease on the 2015-2016 crop estimates, the 2015-2016 program expenditure needs, and the current and projected size of its monetary reserve. The Committee estimated onion shipments for 2015-2016 at 8,800,000 hundredweight which should provide $440,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with contributions ($7,000), interest income ($1,750), other income $(5,000), grant income ($34,500), and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve ($217,223), should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. The Committee estimates that its operating reserve will be approximately $340,344 at the end of the 2015-2016 fiscal period. Funds in the reserve will be kept within the maximum permitted by the order of approximately one fiscal year's operational expenses (§ 958.44).

The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.

Although this assessment rate is effective for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2015-2016 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods will 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 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 250 producers of onions in the production area and approximately 31 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, as reported in the Vegetables 2014 Summary, the total F.O.B. value of onions in the regulated production area for 2014 was $100,951,000. Based on an industry estimate of 31 handlers, the average value of onions handled per handler is $3,256,484, well below the SBA threshold for defining small agricultural service firms. In addition, based on an industry estimate of 250 producers, the average F.O.B. value of onions produced in the production area is $403,804 per producer. Therefore, it can be concluded that the majority of handlers and producers of Idaho-Eastern Oregon onions may be classified as small entities.

This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2015-2016 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.10 to $0.05 per hundredweight of onions handled. The Committee recommended 2015-2016 expenditures of $705,473 and an assessment rate of $0.05 per hundredweight. The assessment rate of $0.05 is $0.05 lower than the 2014-2015 rate. The quantity of assessable onions for the 2015-2016 fiscal period is estimated at 8,800,000 hundredweight. Thus, the $0.05 rate should provide $440,000 in assessment income. Assessment income, along with interest and other income, contributions and grants, and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve ($217,223), should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses of $705,473.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2015-2016 year include $6,000 for committee expenses, $115,412 for salary expenses, $67,810 for travel/office expenses, $466,251 for program expenses, and $50,000 for marketing order contingency. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2014-2015 were $6,000, $112,124, $107,810, $898,010, and $50,000, respectively.

The Committee's recommendation to decrease the assessment was in response to a request from handlers and growers to reduce promotion expenditures from $635,000 to $250,000 and to allow handlers to keep $0.05 per hundredweight to spend on their own branded promotions.

Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Executive, Research, Export, and Promotion Sub-Committees, grower associations, and industry leaders. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by these groups, based upon the relative value of various activities to the onion industry. The Committee ultimately determined that income derived from handler assessments, along with interest and other income, contributions and grants, and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve will be adequate to cover 2015-2016 budgeted expenses of $705,473.

A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates that the producer price for the 2015-2016 fiscal period could range between $8.00 and $8.50 per hundredweight of onions. Utilizing these estimates and the assessment rate of $0.05 per hundredweight, estimated assessment revenue as a percentage of total grower revenue could range between 0.59 and 0.63 percent for the 2015-2016 fiscal period.

This action decreases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Idaho-Eastern Oregon onion industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the April 21, 2015, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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, Vegetable and Specialty Crops. 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 action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Idaho-Eastern Oregon onion 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 rule.

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/MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect, and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The 2015-2016 fiscal period begins on July 1, 2015, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable onions handled during such fiscal period; (2) the action decreases the assessment rate for assessable onions beginning with the 2015-2016 fiscal period; (3) handlers are aware of this action which was recommended by the Committee at a public meeting; and (4) this interim rule provides a 60-day comment period, and all comments timely received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 958

Marketing agreements, Onions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 958 is amended as follows:

PART 958—ONIONS GROWN IN CERTAIN DESIGNATED COUNTIES IN IDAHO, AND MALHEUR COUNTY, OREGON 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 958 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 601-674.

2. Section 958.240 is revised to read as follows:
§ 958.240 Assessment rate.

On and after July 1, 2015, an assessment rate of $0.05 per hundredweight is established for Idaho-Eastern Oregon onions.

Dated: August 13, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-20444 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 96 [Public Notice 9228] RIN 1400-AD82 Intercountry Adoptions: Regulatory Change To Prevent Accreditation and Approval Renewal Requests From Coming Due at the Same Time AGENCY:

Department of State.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule amends the Department of State (Department) regulation on the accreditation and approval of adoption service providers in intercountry adoptions. Most agencies and persons currently accredited received that accreditation at approximately the same time, which has resulted in a surge of concurrent renewal applications for consideration by the Council on Accreditation (COA), the designated accrediting entity. Permitting some agencies or persons to qualify for an extension by one year of the accreditation or approval period will result in a more even distribution of applications for renewal in a given year. By distributing renewals, and the resources needed to process them, COA will be further enabled to effectively and consistently carry out its other functions.

DATES:

Effective September 18, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carine Rosalia, Office of Legal Affairs, Overseas Citizen Services, U.S. Department of State, CA/OCS/L, SA-17, Floor 10, Washington, DC 20522-1710; (202) 485-6079.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Why is the Department promulgating this rule?

This rule amends procedural aspects of the Intercountry Adoption Accreditation Regulations concerning the length of accreditation or approval found in 22 CFR part 96. Subpart G governs decisions on applications for accreditation and approval. Section 96.60 provides for accreditation or approval for a period of four years. Section 96.60 does not currently provide the opportunity to stagger the renewal applications, which results in many renewal applications coming due at the same time.

This rule aids the accrediting entity in managing its workload. In particular, the amendments to this section will allow for a one-year extension of previously-granted accreditation or approval, not to exceed five years total, based on criteria included in the rule, and summarized here.

The final rule establishes criteria for selecting which agencies or persons are eligible for the one-year extension. As a threshold matter, only agencies and persons that have no pending adoption-related complaint investigations or adverse actions will be eligible for an extension under this procedure. Also, those entities that have undergone a change in corporate or internal structure (such as a merger or a leadership change in chief executive or chief financial officer) since their initial accreditation/approval or last renewal will not qualify for an extension under this procedure. If the agency or person meets the threshold criteria, in order to ensure that the extension achieves its purpose of staggering renewals thereafter, the Secretary in his discretion may consider additional factors including, but not limited to, the agency's or person's volume of intercountry adoption cases in the year preceding the application for renewal or extension, the agency's or person's U.S. state licensure record, and the number of extensions available.

Since the President signed into law the Intercountry Adoption Universal Accreditation Act of 2012, approximately 40 new agencies received accreditation, all in the same year. The resulting surge in the number of agencies requiring review in certain years argued strongly for establishing a mechanism that would allow COA to better manage the distribution of renewals. The procedure outlined in this rulemaking allows a more even distribution of the number of renewals an accrediting entity must review in a given year.

Administrative Procedure Act

The Department published this rule as a notice of proposed rulemaking on June 10, 2015, with a 30-day period for public comments. See 80 FR 32869. The Department received no comments on the rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business

Consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the small business entities affected by the amended rule, the cost is neutral because it does not change the cost per year of accreditation or renewal, but only potentially the year in which renewal takes place.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This rulemaking is not affected by the provisions of section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1532).

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121).

Executive Order 12866

The Department of State has reviewed this rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this rulemaking to be an economically significant action under the Executive Order. The rule does not add any new legal requirements to Part 96; it merely adds administrative flexibility to the work of the Department-designated accrediting entity.

Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism

This rule does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor does it have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders 12372 and No. 13132.

Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform

The Department has reviewed the rule in light of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

The Department has considered this rule in light of Executive Order 13563, dated January 18, 2011, and affirms that it is consistent with the guidance therein.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 96

Adoption, Child welfare, Children, Immigration, Foreign persons.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR part 96 as follows:

PART 96—INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION ACCREDITATION OF AGENCIES AND APPROVAL OF PERSONS 1. The authority citation for part 96 continues to read as follows: Authority:

The Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (done at the Hague, May 29, 1993), S. Treaty Doc. 105-51 (1998), 1870 U.N.T.S. 167 (Reg. No. 31922 (1993)); The Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. 14901-14954; The Intercountry Adoption Universal Accreditation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-276, 42 U.S.C. 14925.

2. Revise § 96.60 to read as follows:
§ 96.60 Length of accreditation or approval period.

(a) The accrediting entity will accredit or approve an agency or person for a period of four years, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. The accreditation or approval period will commence on the date that the agency or person is granted accreditation or approval.

(b) In order to stagger the renewal requests from agencies and persons applying for accreditation or approval and to prevent the renewal requests from coming due at the same time, the accrediting entity may extend the period of accreditation it has previously granted for no more than one year and such that the total period of accreditation does not exceed five years, as long as the agency or person remains in substantial compliance with the applicable standards in subpart F of this part. The only agencies and persons that may qualify for an extension are: Those that have no pending Complaint Registry investigations or adverse actions (see § 96.70); and those that have not undergone a change in corporate or internal structure (such as a merger or change in chief executive or financial officer) during their current accreditation or approval period. For agencies and persons that meet these two criteria, the Secretary, in his or her discretion, may consider additional factors in deciding upon an extension including, but not limited to, the agency's or person's volume of intercountry adoption cases in the year preceding the application for renewal or extension, the agency's or person's state licensure record, and the number of extensions available.

Dated: August 11, 2015. Michele Thoren Bond, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-20402 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2013-1061; 1625-AA08] Special Local Regulations; Eighth Coast Guard District Annual and Recurring Marine Events Update AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is amending and updating its special local regulations relating to recurring marine parades, regattas, and other events that take place in the Eighth Coast Guard District area of responsibility (AOR). This final rule informs the public of regularly scheduled marine parades, regattas, and other recurring events that require additional safety measures through establishing a special local regulation. Through this final rule, the list of recurring marine events requiring special local regulation is updated with revisions, additional events, and removal of events that no longer take place in the Eighth Coast Guard District AOR. When these special local regulations are enforced, certain restrictions are placed on marine traffic in specified areas. Additionally, this one rulemaking project reduces administrative costs involved in producing a separate rule for each individual recurring event, and serves to provide notice of the known recurring events requiring a special local regulation throughout the year.

DATES:

Effective September 18, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of Docket Number [USCG-2013-1061]. 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 AOR Area of Responsibility 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 22381). 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 marine events and special local regulations under 33 CFR part 100. 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 marine events and special local regulations.

The list of annual and recurring marine events and special local regulations occurring in the Eighth Coast Guard District Area of Responsibility (AOR) is published under 33 CFR 100.801. That list was last updated through a direct final rule with request for comments on March 1, 2012 (77 FR 12456) and further amended on May 16, 2012 (77 FR 28766). These actions generated no adverse comments. Like today's final rule and its preceding interim rule, the 2012 final rules updated, added to, removed from, and amended 33 CFR 100.801 to create a comprehensive list of recurring marine events requiring special local regulations.

B. Basis and Purpose

The legal basis for the rule is found in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorizes the Coast Guard to permit marine events and establish special local regulations related to those marine events.

The Coast Guard is amending and updating the special local regulations under 33 CFR part 100 to incorporate the numerous annual marine events held on or around navigable waters within the Eighth Coast Guard District. These events include marine parades, boat races, swim events, and other marine related events. Currently, there is a list of events located at 33 CFR § 100.801, establishing a special local regulation for each annual or recurring marine event in the Eighth Coast Guard District's AOR. That list must be amended in order to: Provide new information on existing events; include 42 new events expected to recur annually or biannually; and remove 16 special local regulations that are no longer required. Issuing individual rulemakings for each new event, amendment, or removal of an event, would create unnecessary administrative costs and burdens. This rule considerably reduces administrative overhead and provides the public with notice through publication in the Federal Register of the upcoming recurring marine events and their accompanying special local regulations.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

No adverse comments were received in response to the April 22, 2014 interim final rule. 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 marine events requiring special local regulations. Accordingly, this final rule makes no changes to the regulations in the interim rule.

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.

The marine parades, regattas, and other marine events listed in this rule will restrict vessel traffic in certain areas of Eighth Coast Guard District waters at specified times; however, the effect of this regulation will not be significant because these events are short in duration and the special local regulations restricting and governing vessel movements are also limited in scope and short in 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 events in advance. Deviations from each special local regulation may be requested through the COTP and each request 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 regulated areas during the marine events and periods of enforcement. The special local regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. These regulations are limited in scope and will be in effect for short periods of times. Before each enforcement period, the Coast Guard COTP will issue maritime advisories widely available to waterway users. Deviations from each special local regulation may be requested through the COTP and each request 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(h) of the Commandant Instruction because it involves the establishment of special local regulations related to marine event permits for marine parades, regattas, and other marine events. 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 100

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

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS Accordingly, the interim rule amending 33 CFR part 100 that published at 79 FR 22381 on April 22, 2014, is adopted as a final rule without change. Dated: June 27, 2015. D.R. Callahan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eight Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-20407 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 51, 52, 70, and 71 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0414; FRL-9932-11-OAR] Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Removal of Certain Vacated Elements AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending its Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and title V regulations to remove from the Code of Federal Regulations portions of those regulations that were initially promulgated in 2010 and that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) specifically identified as vacated in the April 10, 2015, amended judgment, Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA. This action is exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking because it is ministerial in nature.

DATES:

This rule is effective on August 19, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0414. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA William Jefferson Clinton West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the Office of Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions concerning this final rule should be addressed to Mrs. Jessica Montañez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division, (C504-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-3407, email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The information in this section of the preamble is organized as follows:

I. Does this action apply to me? II. Background and Rationale for This Action III. Final Action IV. Implementation V. Environmental Justice Considerations VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews VII. Judicial Review I. Does this action apply to me?

Entities potentially affected by this final action include new and modified stationary sources in all industry groups. To determine whether your facility would be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in §§ 51.166 and 52.21 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Entities potentially affected by this final action also include state, local and tribal governments that are authorized to implement the PSD program through an EPA-approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) or Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP) or that have been authorized to implement the PSD program through a delegation of the federal PSD regulations.

II. Background and Rationale for This Action

Part C of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) contains the requirements for a component of the major New Source Review (NSR) program known as the PSD program. This program sets forth procedures for the preconstruction review and permitting of new and modified stationary sources of air pollution locating in areas meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (“attainment” areas) and areas for which there is insufficient information to classify an area as either attainment or nonattainment (“unclassifiable” areas). The applicability of PSD to a particular source must be determined in advance of construction of a new source or major modification of an existing source and is pollutant-specific. Once a source is determined to be subject to PSD, among other requirements, the source must demonstrate that it will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or PSD increment,1 and that it will use the Best Available Control Technology (BACT).2 The EPA regulations for the PSD program are contained in 40 CFR 51.166 (applicable to air agencies that issue permits under EPA-approved SIPs) and 40 CFR 52.21 (the federal PSD program applicable to permits issued by the EPA or air agencies that have received delegation to implement the federal PSD program).

1 CAA section 165(a)(3).

2 CAA section 165(a)(4).

Title V of the CAA, on the other hand, requires all major stationary sources of air pollution and certain other sources to apply for a title V operating permit that includes emission limitations and other conditions as necessary to assure compliance with applicable requirements of the CAA.3 The title V operating permit program is a vehicle for ensuring that air quality control requirements are appropriately applied to facility emission units and for assuring compliance with such requirements. The title V program does not generally impose new substantive air quality control requirements, but does require permits to contain adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting and other requirements to assure sources' compliance. The title V program is implemented through regulations contained in 40 CFR part 70 (for programs implemented by state or local agencies and tribes) and 40 CFR part 71 (for programs generally implemented by the EPA).

3 CAA sections 502(a) and 504(a).

On June 3, 2010, the EPA published a final rule, known as the Tailoring Rule, which phased in permitting requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from stationary sources under the CAA PSD and title V permitting programs (75 FR 31514). Under its interpretation of the CAA at the time, the EPA believed the Tailoring Rule was necessary to avoid a sudden and unmanageable increase in the number of sources that would be required to obtain PSD and title V permits under the CAA because the sources emitted or had the potential to emit GHGs above the applicable major source and major modification thresholds. In Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on January 2, 2011, the EPA limited application of PSD and title V requirements to sources only if they were subject to PSD or title V “anyway” due to their emissions of non-GHG pollutants. These sources are referred to as “anyway sources.” In Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on July 1, 2011, the EPA applied the PSD and title V permitting requirements under the CAA to sources that were classified as major, and, thus, required to obtain a permit, based solely on their GHG emissions or potential to emit GHGs, and to modifications of otherwise major sources that required a PSD permit because they increased only GHG emissions above the level in the EPA regulations.

On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, addressing the application of stationary source permitting requirements to GHGs. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for the specific purpose of determining whether a source is a major source (or a modification thereof) and thus required to obtain a PSD or title V permit. However, the U.S. Supreme Court also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs pollutants, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of GHG BACT. That is, with respect to PSD, the ruling effectively upheld PSD permitting requirements for GHG emissions under Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule for “anyway sources,” and invalidated PSD permitting requirements for Step 2 sources.

Because the Supreme Court decision affirmed in part and reversed in part an earlier decision of the D.C. Circuit in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012), on April 10, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued an Amended Judgment (Nos. 09-1322, 10-073, 10-1092 and 10-1167), which reflects the UARG v. EPA Supreme Court decision. The D.C. Circuit simultaneously issued its mandate, which means that the Coalition Amended Judgment became final and effective upon issuance.

In the Coalition Amended Judgment, the D.C. Circuit ordered that the EPA regulations under review (including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v)) be vacated to the extent they require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the applicable major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase from a modification. The D.C. Circuit also ordered that the regulations under review be vacated to the extent they require (i) a stationary source to obtain a title V permit solely because the source emits or has the potential to emit GHGs above the applicable major source thresholds and (ii) the EPA to consider further phasing-in the GHG permitting requirements at lower GHG emission thresholds (in particular 40 CFR 52.22 and 40 CFR 70.12, 71.13).

Consistent with the Coalition Amended Judgment, this action removes from the PSD regulations certain regulatory provisions that require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit solely on the basis of the source's GHG emissions and the regulations that require the EPA to consider further phasing-in GHG permitting requirements into the PSD and title V permitting programs at lower GHG emissions thresholds. The EPA intends to further revise the PSD and title V regulations to fully implement the Coalition Amended Judgment in a separate rulemaking. This future rulemaking will include revisions to additional definitions in the PSD regulations. It will also include further revising the title V regulations to remove portions of the title V regulations that were vacated in the Coalition Amended Judgment case—those that require a stationary source to obtain a title V permit solely because the source emits or has the potential to emit GHGs above the applicable major source thresholds. Those additional revisions to the PSD and title V regulations, although necessary to implement the Coalition Amended Judgment, are not purely ministerial in nature and will be addressed in this separate notice-and-comment rulemaking, which would give the public an opportunity to comment on how the EPA proposes to address those portions of the Coalition Amended Judgment.

III. Final Action

This final action removes from the CFR several provisions of the PSD and title V permitting regulations that were originally promulgated as part of the Tailoring Rule and that the D.C. Circuit specifically identified as vacated in the Coalition Amended Judgment. Because the D.C. Circuit specifically identified the Tailoring Rule Step 2 PSD permitting requirements in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) and the regulations that require the EPA to consider further phasing-in the GHG permitting requirements at lower GHG emission thresholds in 40 CFR 52.22, 70.12, and 71.13 as vacated, the EPA is taking the ministerial action of removing these provisions from the CFR.

Furthermore, and since the D.C. Circuit's Coalition Amended Judgment further ordered “the EPA to take steps to rescind and/or revise the applicable provisions of the CFR as expeditiously as practicable” to reflect its vacatur of certain provisions from the Tailoring Rule, this rulemaking addresses only those provisions specifically identified in the Coalition Amended Judgment that can be removed from the CFR without the need for any further changes. In a subsequent notice-and-comment rulemaking, the EPA will need to make additional changes to its PSD and title V permitting regulations in order to fully implement the Coalition Amended Judgment.

The EPA is taking this action as a final rule without providing an opportunity for public comment or a public hearing because the EPA finds that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) good cause exemption applies here. In general, the APA requires that general notice of proposed rulemaking shall be published in the Federal Register. Such notice must provide an opportunity for public participation in the rulemaking process. However, the APA also provides a way for an agency to directly issue a final rulemaking in certain specific instances. This may occur, in particular, when an agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to provide a public hearing or an opportunity for public comment on this action because the removal of the affected PSD and title V Tailoring Rule provisions from the CFR is a necessary ministerial act. The D.C. Circuit specifically identified as vacated the PSD and title V regulations this rule removes, and ordered that the EPA take steps to rescind and/or revise the applicable provisions of the CFR as expeditiously as practicable. The EPA no longer has the authority to require any source to obtain a PSD or title V permit based solely on the source having GHG emissions above applicable thresholds. Thus, EPA may not implement the vacated provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 52.21(b)(49)(v) that applied PSD to this population of sources. Further, the EPA is no longer required to take the actions specified in the vacated regulations at 40 CFR 52.22, 70.12, and 71.13 to consider further phasing in GHG PSD and title V permitting requirements at lower GHG emissions thresholds. Therefore, removing the affected regulatory text simply implements the decision of the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit and it would serve no useful purpose to provide an opportunity for public comment or a public hearing on this issue.

In addition, notice-and-comment would be contrary to the public interest because it would unnecessarily delay the removal from the CFR of the Tailoring Rule Step 2 PSD permitting provisions that the Supreme Court held were invalid and the regulations that require the EPA to consider further phasing-in the GHG permitting requirements for lower GHG emissions thresholds in 40 CFR 52.22, 70.12, and 71.13 that the D.C. Circuit's Coalition Amended Judgment specifically identified as vacated. Such delay could result in confusion on the part of the regulated industry and state, local and tribal air agencies about how the D.C. Circuit's decision affects the PSD and title V regulations as well as PSD permitting. Promulgation of this rule soon after the D.C. Circuit decision serves to clarify that sources are no longer required to obtain PSD permits under the preconstruction permitting regulations associated with Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule and that the EPA will not be required under 40 CFR 52.22, 70.12, and 71.13 to take further steps to consider further phasing in PSD and title V permitting requirements at lower GHG emissions thresholds. Given the substantial costs to the owner/operator of projects associated with delays and uncertainty, it is in the public interest for the EPA to amend the CFR without delay. Furthermore, and as stated previously, the D.C. Circuit's Coalition Amended Judgment ordered the EPA to take steps to undertake these revisions as expeditiously as practicable.

For these reasons, the EPA finds good cause to issue a final rulemaking pursuant to section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). The requirements of CAA section 307(d), including the requirement for public comment and hearing on proposed rulemakings, do not apply to this action because 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) applies. In addition, this rule relieves a restriction on construction of some stationary sources and therefore is not subject to the requirement for a 30-day delay in effective date. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). Moreover, the agency finds that the problems outlined above regarding the effects of delaying issuance of the rule also provide good cause for not delaying its effective date. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Accordingly, the requirement for a delay in effective date does not apply and the rule will take effect upon publication in the Federal Register. 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

IV. Implementation

The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of the Tailoring Rule Step 2 PSD permitting requirements in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) and the provisions that required further action to consider phasing-in GHG permitting requirements into the PSD and title V programs at lower GHG emission thresholds at 40 CFR 52.22, 70.12, and 71.13 means that these provisions can no longer be relied upon by the EPA, permit applicants or permitting authorities as a basis for issuing PSD permits. Further, this means that the EPA will not be required to take the actions specified in the regulations at 40 CFR 52.22, 70.12, and 71.13 to consider further phasing in GHG PSD and title V permitting requirements at lower GHG emissions thresholds.

Permit reviewing authorities with EPA-approved SIPs containing any or all of the affected provisions previously allowed by 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) may request to remove their corresponding Tailoring Rule Step 2 provisions as soon as feasible, which may be in conjunction with the next otherwise planned SIP revision. Permit reviewing authorities also have the option to retain the Tailoring Rule Step 2 permitting requirements solely as a requirement of state law, but these requirements will not be approved as part of their federally-enforceable SIP. As we explained in a memorandum issued by the agency on July 24, 2014, titled, “Next Steps and Preliminary Views on the Application of Clean Air Act Permitting Programs to Greenhouse Gases Following the Supreme Court's Decision in UARG v. EPA” (Preliminary Views Memo),4 we again note that the “[EPA does] not read the [U.S.] Supreme Court decision to preclude states from retaining permitting requirements for sources of GHG emissions that apply independently under state law even where those requirements are no longer required under federal law.”

4http://epa.gov/nsr/documents/20140724memo.pdf.

With regard to PSD Step 2 permits already issued, the Preliminary Views Memo explained that the EPA “will no longer require PSD . . . permits for Step 2 sources” (Preliminary Views Memo at 2) and that the EPA expected “to provide additional views in the future with respect to Step 2 sources that had already obtained a PSD permit . . .” (Preliminary Views Memo at 4). The EPA provided additional views regarding EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits 5 when it issued two memoranda on December 19, 2014. In the first memorandum issued by the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) and titled, “Next Steps for Addressing EPA-Issued Step 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Greenhouse Gas Permits and Associated Requirements” (OAR Next Steps Memo),6 the EPA explained that it intended to complete a rulemaking “authorizing the rescission of Step 2 PSD permits.” In the second memorandum, which was issued by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and titled, “No Action Assurance Regarding EPA-Issued Step 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits and Related Title V Requirements Following Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency” (OECA No Action Assurance Memo),7 OECA issued a narrowly tailored No Action Assurance for sources with EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits. The OECA No Action Assurance Memo establishes that the EPA will exercise its enforcement discretion not to pursue enforcement of the terms and conditions relating to GHGs in a source's EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit, and for related GHG terms and conditions that are contained in the source's title V permit, if any, until 11:59 p.m. EDT, September 30, 2016. The No Action Assurance ceases to apply to a source once its EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permit is rescinded, and, if applicable, its title V permit is accordingly revised, whichever is later.

5 For purposes of this rule, the phrases “EPA-issued PSD permits that were issued under Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule” and “EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits” are intended to have the same meaning. The use of the term “EPA-issued” in both phrases includes PSD permits issued by the EPA as well as permits issued by state or local reviewing authorities exercising federal law authority delegated by an EPA Regional Office under 40 CFR 52.21(u).

6http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgdocs/Step2PermitRescissionMemoFinal_12-19-14.pdf.

7http://epa.gov/nsr/ghgdocs/OECANoActionAssuranceMemo_December192014.pdf.

Consistent with the plan described in the OAR Next Steps Memo, the EPA completed the rulemaking that allows for rescission of Step 2 permits. “Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Providing Option for Rescission of EPA-Issued Tailoring Rule Step 2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits” (80 FR 26183; May 7, 2015). This rule provides a mechanism for the EPA and delegated reviewing authorities to rescind EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits in response to requests from applicants who can demonstrate that they are eligible for permit rescission and as further discussed in that rule. EPA received no comments on this rule, and it is now in effect. Sources with questions on PSD permitting obligations arising from Step 2 PSD permits issued by state, local or tribal permitting authorities under permitting programs approved into the state or tribal implementation plans should review the governing statutory provisions and the provisions in the applicable state or tribal implementation plans to determine how to address these Step 2 permits and consult with the EPA, states and tribes, as necessary.

In the case of sources that trigger PSD based on emissions of pollutants other than GHG (“anyway sources”), the PSD BACT requirement continues to apply to GHG emissions from such sources. This rulemaking does not change §§ 51.166(j), 51.166(b)(48)(iv), 52.21(j), or 52.21(b)(48)(iv) of EPA's regulations, which remain in effect. Under these provisions, the BACT requirement applies to GHG emissions from “anyway sources” when a new source emits or has the potential to emit 75,000 tons per year (tpy) or more of GHG on a carbon dioxide equivalent (“CO2e”) basis. When an anyway source is modified, under these provisions, the BACT requirement applies to GHGs if (1) the modification is otherwise subject to PSD for a pollutant other than GHG; and (2) the modification results in a GHG emissions increase and a net GHG emission increase equal to or greater than 75,000 tpy or more on a CO2e basis and greater than zero on a mass basis.

With respect to title V, the D.C. Circuit's Amended Judgment in Coalition means that the provisions at 40 CFR 70.12 and 71.13 addressing further consideration of phasing-in of title V permitting program requirements at lower GHG emission thresholds are no longer in effect. The obligations that they contain for the EPA to further study and take further action to consider regulating GHGs at lower GHG emissions thresholds under the title V program no longer exist.

V. Environmental Justice Considerations

This action removes sections and paragraphs of the PSD and title V GHG Tailoring Rule regulations that the D.C. Circuit specifically identified as vacated in the Coalition Amended Judgment. In accordance with the changes made by this action, permit applicants are no longer required to request PSD permits if GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a modification. In addition, the EPA will not be required to take the actions specified in the regulations at 40 CFR 52.22, 70.12, and 71.13 to consider further phasing in GHG PSD and title V permitting requirements at lower GHG emissions thresholds. Therefore, this action itself does not compel any specific permit action that will affect the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people. Rather, it makes clear that a portion of the Coalition Amended Judgment is efficiently implemented and permit applicants are no longer required to submit PSD permit applications if GHGs are the only pollutant that the sources emits above the applicable major source thresholds.

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0003. To the extent this rule has any substantive effect, it relieves regulatory burdens by removing regulations that purport to require permit applicants to request PSD permits if GHGs are the only pollutant emitted by the new source or modification to an existing source above the applicable major source thresholds and regulations that required the EPA to consider further phasing-in the GHG permitting requirements at lower GHG emission thresholds. This action is taken in light of the D.C. Circuit's Coalition Amended Judgment that vacated those regulations.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. To the extent this rule has any substantive effect, it relieves regulatory burdens by removing regulations that purport to require permit applicants to request PSD permits if GHGs are the only pollutant emitted by the new source or modification to an existing source above the applicable major source thresholds and regulations that required the EPA to consider further phasing-in the GHG permitting requirements at lower GHG emission thresholds. This action is taken in light of the D.C. Circuit's Coalition Amended Judgment that vacated those regulations. We have therefore concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Although the Tribal Air Rule (76 FR 38748, July 1, 2011) under the CAA gives tribes the opportunity to request and be granted delegation of the federal PSD program found at 40 CFR 52.21 to issue PSD permits, there are no tribal agencies currently implementing the federal PSD permitting program. As a result, the removal of the PSD provisions that the D.C. Circuit vacated will not affect any tribal reviewing authorities and any tribally-owned sources with EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits have the discretion to request the EPA to rescind their permit. In addition, the D.C. Circuit vacatur of the requirements for the EPA to consider further phasing in GHG permitting requirements into the PSD and title V programs at lower GHG emission thresholds provides relief to tribally-owned sources that could have been subject to GHG permitting regulations at lower GHG emission thresholds if the EPA would have taken steps to apply GHG permitting requirements to such sources at such thresholds. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. The results of this evaluation are contained in the section V titled, “Environmental Justice Considerations” for this action.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). The EPA has made a good cause finding for this rule as discussed in the Final Action section of this rulemaking, including the basis for that finding.

L. Determination Under Section 307(d)

Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(V), the Administrator determines that this action is subject to provisions of section 307(d). Section 307(d) establishes procedural requirements specific to rulemaking under the CAA. Section 307(d)(1)(V) provides that the provisions of section 307(d) apply to “such other actions as the Administrator may determine.”

VII. Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit within 60 days from August 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) of the CAA).

List of Subjects 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, National ambient air quality standards, New source review, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Preconstruction permitting, Prevention of significant deterioration, Reviewing authorities, Sulfur oxides, Tailoring rule, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Parts 70 and 71

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, National ambient air quality standards, Nitrogen dioxide, Operating permits, Ozone, Particulate matter, Permitting authorities, Sulfur oxides, Tailoring rule, Title V, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: August 12, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows: Authority:

23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart I—Review of New Sources and Modifications
§ 51.166 [Amended]
2. Section 51.166 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(48)(v).
PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 3. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

Subpart A—General Provisions
§ 52.21 [Amended]
4. Section 52.21 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(49)(v).
§ 52.22 [Removed]
5. Section 52.22 is removed.
PART 70—STATE OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAMS 6. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

§ 70.12 [Removed]
7. Section 70.12 is removed.
PART 71—FEDERAL OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAMS 8. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

§ 71.13 [Removed]
9. Section 71.13 is removed.
[FR Doc. 2015-20501 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0541; A-1-FRL-9932-46-Region 1] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Rhode Island; Rhode Island Low Emission Vehicle Program AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. The regulations adopted by Rhode Island include the California Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) II light-duty motor vehicle emission standards effective in model year 2008, the California LEV II medium-duty vehicle standards effective in model year 2009, and greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty motor vehicles and medium-duty vehicles effective with model year 2009. The Rhode Island LEV regulation submitted also includes a zero emission vehicle (ZEV) provision. Rhode Island has adopted these revisions to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as well as to reduce greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons). In addition, Rhode Island has worked to ensure that their program is identical to California's, as required by the CAA. These actions are being taken in accordance with the CAA.

DATES:

This rule is effective on September 18, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0541. 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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.

Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at Office of Air Resources, Department of Environmental Management, 235 Promenade Street, Providence, RI 02908-5767.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1660, fax number (617) 918-0660, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document whenever “we”, “us”, or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose II. Final Action III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background and Purpose

On June 4, 2015 (80 FR 31867), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Rhode Island. The NPR proposed approval of Rhode Island's amended Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 37 (APCR No. 37), “Rhode Island's Low Emission Vehicle Program.” Rhode Island's amended APCR No. 37, with an effective date of December 22, 2005, adopts the California LEV II program. Rhode Island first adopted California's LEV I program standards on June 6, 1996. In 1999, APCR No. 37 was amended to allow automobile manufacturers to comply with the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program in lieu of complying with the California LEV program. In 2004, Rhode Island adopted California's LEV II standards. In September 2005, California amended their LEV II standards to include standards for greenhouse gas emissions to apply to model year 2009 and later vehicles.

On December 22, 2005, Rhode Island made the following amendments to APCR No. 37: Adopted California LEV II emission standards and related provisions for medium-duty vehicles commencing with the 2009 model year, adopted recently announced revisions concerning LEV II greenhouse gas emission standards and related provisions for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles commencing with the 2009 model year in accordance with section 177 of the CAA, and provided additional clarification and flexibility with respect to the implementation of the zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) program in Rhode Island.

A detailed discussion of Rhode Island's September 5, 2008 SIP revision and EPA's rationale for proposing approval of the SIP revision were provided in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.

II. Final Action

EPA is approving Rhode Island's Low Emission Vehicle Program as a revision to the Rhode Island SIP. Specifically, EPA is incorporating into the SIP Rhode Island Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 37, “Rhode Island's Low Emission Vehicle Program,” effective in the State of Rhode Island on December 22, 2005.

III. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference Rhode Island's revised Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 37 described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 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).

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by 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: July 22, 2015. H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart OO—Rhode Island 2. In § 52.2070, the table in paragraph (c) “EPA-Approved Rhode Island Regulations”, is amended by revising the entry for the state citation “Air Pollution Control Regulation 37” to read as follows:
§ 52.2070 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

EPA—Approved Rhode Island Regulations

State citation Title/subject State
  • effective date
  • EPA approval date Explanations
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Air Pollution Control Regulation 37 Rhode Island's Low Emission Vehicle Program 12/22/2005 8/19/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] Adopts California LEV II standards. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-20373 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0972, FRL-9932-52-Region 8] Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2008 Lead, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Colorado AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from the State of Colorado to demonstrate the State meets infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act, CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on March 12, 2008; lead (Pb) on October 15, 2008; and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on January 22, 2010. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective September 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification Number EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0972. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in the hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 8, Office of Partnership and Regulatory Assistance, Air Program, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129. The EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays. An electronic copy of the State's SIP compilation is also available at http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/sip.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 303-312-6563, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Infrastructure requirements for SIPs are provided in section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2) lists the specific infrastructure elements that a SIP must contain or satisfy. The elements that are the subject of this action are described in detail in our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) published on June 1, 2015 (80 FR 30974).

    The NPR proposed approval of Colorado's submissions with respect to the following infrastructure elements for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS: (A), (C) with respect to minor NSR and PSD requirements, (D)(i)(II) elements 3 and 4, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M); (B) for the 2008 Pb and 2008 ozone NAAQS and conditional approval of (B) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS; and D(i)(I) elements 1 and 2 for the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. EPA will act separately on infrastructure element (D)(i)(I), interstate transport elements 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The reasons for our approvals are provided in detail in the NPR.

    II. Response to Comments

    No comments were received on our June 1, 2015 NPR.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the following infrastructure elements for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS: CAA 110(a)(2) (A), (C) with respect to minor NSR and PSD requirements, (D)(i)(II) elements 3 and 4, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA is approving element (B) for the 2008 Pb and 2008 ozone NAAQS and conditionally approving (B) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Finally, EPA is approving D(i)(I) elements 1 and 2 for the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. EPA will act separately on infrastructure element (D)(i)(I), interstate transport elements 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.1

    1 This action also corrects an error to a Federal Register citation in our NPR (80 FR 30974, June 1, 2015) on page 30978. The NPR incorrectly cites approval of the State's SIP-approved minor NSR program at 68 FR 37744 rather than the correct citation of 44 FR 57401 (Oct. 5, 1979).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    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 some state law as meeting federal requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet federal requirements; this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by 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 CAA section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 30, 2015. Shaun L. McGrath, Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart G—Colorado 2. Section 52.353 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 52.353 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

    (c) The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment provided submissions to meet infrastructure requirements for the State of Colorado for the 2008 ozone, 2008 lead, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS were received on December 31, 2012, July 26, 2012, and March 7, 2013, respectively. The State's Infrastructure SIP is approved with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2008 lead, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS with respect to section (110)(a)(1) and the following elements of section (110)(a)(2): (A), (C) with respect to minor NSR and PSD requirements, (D)(i)(II) elements 3 and 4, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M); (B) for the 2008 Pb and 2008 ozone NAAQS and conditional approval of (B) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS; and D(i)(I) elements 1 and 2 for the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

    [FR Doc. 2015-20377 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0633; FRL-9931-07] Methane Sulfonic Acid; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of methane sulfonic acid (CAS Reg. No.75-75-2) when used as an inert ingredient (acidifying agent) in pesticide formulations applied to animals at a maximum concentration not to exceed 3% by weight and when used as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils at a concentration not to exceed 5,000 parts per million (ppm). Lewis & Harrison, on behalf of BASF Corporation, submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of methane sulfonic acid.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective August 19, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 19, 2015], and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0633, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0633 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 19, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0633, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11613) (FRL-9922-68), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition inert ingredient (PP IN-10720) by Lewis & Harrison, 122 C Street NW., Suite 505, Washington, DC 20001 on behalf of BASF Corporation, 100 Park Avenue, Florham Park, NJ 07932. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.930 and 40 CFR 180.940(a) be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of methane sulfonic acid (CAS Reg. No.75-75-2) when used as an inert ingredient (acidifying agent) in pesticide formulations applied to animals at a maximum concentration not to exceed 3% by weight and when used as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils at a concentration not to exceed 5,000 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Lewis & Harrison on behalf of BASF Corporation, the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    III. Inert Ingredient Definition

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

    IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

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

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by methane sulfonic acid as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov on pp. 7-11 of the document titled, “Methane sulfonic acid: Decision Document for Requested Exemption from the Requirements of a Tolerance for a Food Use Inert Ingredient” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0633.

    Methane sulfonic acid has moderate acute oral toxicity to rats and moderate acute dermal toxicity to rabbits. Methane sulfonic acid is corrosive to mouse skin, extremely corrosive to the eye, but showed no evidence of dermal sensitization. Following repeated nose-only inhalation exposures in rats to low concentrations, clear evidence of portal-of-entry effects, such as histopathological lesions in the nasal turbinates were observed however there was no evidence of systemic toxicity at dose levels up to 0.74 milligram/Liter (mg/L) in a 7-day study and 0.24 mg/L in a 28-day study, the highest doses tested in both studies. In a 7-day repeat dose oral feeding study in rats, no systemic toxicity was observed at doses up to 1,805 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day). No effects were seen for parental toxicity, offspring/developmental toxicity or reproductive performance in a combined reproductive/developmental toxicity screening test at doses up to 1,000 mg/kg/day. In one developmental toxicity study in rats, no parental systemic or developmental toxicity was observed at doses up to 400 mg/kg/day. Available prenatal developmental toxicity data showed some evidence of slight maternal toxicity but no developmental effects. Methane sulfonic acid was not mutagenic and did not induce chromosomal aberrations. There are no metabolism, chronic toxicity or carcinogenicity studies available on methane sulfonic acid. However, based on the lack of systemic toxicity at 1,000 mg/kg/day and above in a combined reproductive/developmental screening study and 7-day dietary study, and the lack of mutagenicity concern, there are low concerns for cancer.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified. Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

    The oral toxicity NOAEL is taken from the developmental toxicity study with female Sprague-Dawley rats where the NOAEL was identified as 400 mg/kg/day. This dose is used for the dietary exposure assessment.

    The inhalation toxicity NOAEL was taken from the repeat-dose inhalation study discussed earlier. There were no treatment related macroscopic findings in the treated animals. Microscopic findings believed attributable to the test material included mucosal necrosis, suppurative inflammation and/or nasal exudate in males and females in the 0.23 and 0.74 mg/L groups. Since this is a localized effect, it was not considered as systemic toxicity, and the NOAEL was determined to be 0.74 mg/L (~191 mg/kg/day).

    The dermal toxicity NOAEL is selected from an oral developmental toxicity study with the assumption of 100% dermal absorption. Based on the results of this study, the dermal toxicity NOAEL was 400 mg/kg/day.

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to methane sulfonic acid, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from methane sulfonic acid in food as follows: Based upon the requested use patterns, humans may be exposed to methane sulfonic acid. Dietary exposure may occur as a result of residues transferred from treated food contact areas, including food/dairy processing equipment or systems.

    Additional dietary exposure may occur from consuming meat and dairy products from treated dairy cattle, sheep or goats. The Agency used the dietary exposure model to assess possible residues from treated animals.

    Food. To assess oral exposure from food handling surfaces, the Agency utilized the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Contact Surface Sanitizing Solution Dietary Exposure Assessment Model (FDA/CFSAN OPA: Chemistry Guidance—Sanitizing Solution version 1.1; January 1993; Office of Premarket Approval now Office of Food Additive Safety). To assess dietary exposures from “clean in place” of food processing equipment the Agency utilized assessment techniques described in EPA, 2006 (Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document for Alkyl Dimethyl Benzyl Ammonium Chloride (ADBAC) U.S. EPA Document EPA 739-R-06-009 August 2006). The Agency used the dietary exposure model to assess possible residues from treated animals.

    In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model/Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID)TM, Version 3.16, EPA used food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What we eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to residue levels in food, no residue data were submitted for methane sulfonic acid. In the absence of specific residue data, EPA has developed an approach which uses surrogate information to derive upper bound exposure estimates for the subject inert ingredient. Upper bound exposure estimates are based on the highest tolerance for a given commodity from a list of high-use insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. A complete description of the general approach taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the absence of residue data is contained in the memorandum entitled “Alkyl Amines Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts.” (D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738. In the case of methane sulfonic acid, EPA made specific adjustments to the dietary exposure assessment to account for the use limitations of methane sulfonic acid as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to animals (i.e., livestock used for food) only and at a maximum concentration of 3.0% by weight.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. Based upon the requested use patterns and the restrictions on maximum end-use concentrations, the Agency believes methane sulfonic acid is not likely to be present in drinking water. A quantitative assessment is not necessary.

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

    Dermal and inhalation exposures may occur as a result of the use of sanitizing solutions which contain methane sulfonic acid. Such uses include mopping floors or wiping/sponging food contact surfaces i.e., counter tops. According to Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs Standard Operating Procedures, the Agency conducted conservative assessments of dermal and inhalation exposures for typical residential use patterns.

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

    EPA has not found methane sulfonic acid to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and methane sulfonic acid does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that methane sulfonic acid does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no evidence of increased sensitivity to infants and children due to pre- and post-natal exposure to methane sulfonic acid. No treatment-related effects were observed on maternal toxicity and offspring/developmental toxicity at doses up to the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day in a combined reproductive/developmental toxicity study with rats.

    In one developmental toxicity study in rats, there were no treatment related effects observed in the maternal animals or in the fetuses at doses up to 400 mg/kg/day (the highest dose tested). In another developmental toxicity study in rats no maternal or developmental toxicity was observed at dose levels up to 300 mg/kg/day; the highest dose tested.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for methane sulfonic acid is complete for FQPA assessment. The available studies include two developmental toxicity studies in rats, a combined rat reproductive/developmental toxicity, two repeated dose inhalation toxicity studies in rats, and several mutagenicity studies.

    ii. No treatment related effects were observed in the Functional Observation Battery and motor activity in a combined reproductive/developmental toxicity with rats at doses up to 1,000 mg/kg/day. Based on the results of this study it is concluded that methane sulfonic acid is not a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. There is no evidence that methane sulfonic acid results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats (as discussed above).

    iv. There is no immunotoxicity study available in the database, however, there was no systemic toxicity observed at the limit dose in a combined reproductive/developmental toxicity study. Therefore, there is no need for an immunotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for the lack of an immunotoxicity study.

    v. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases.

    These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by methane sulfonic acid.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, methane sulfonic acid is not expected to pose an acute risk.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit (and at http://www.regulations.gov on pp. 7-11 of the document titled, “Methane sulfonic acid: Decision Document for Requested Exemption from the Requirements of a Tolerance for a Food Use Inert Ingredient” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0633.) For chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to methane sulfonic acid from food and water will utilize 0.2% of the chronic population adjusted reference dose (cPAD) for the U.S. population and 0.7% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years of age, the most highly exposed population group.

    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    Methane sulfonic acid maybe used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that are registered for any use that could result in short-term residential exposure. It is possible that methane sulfonic acid could be used in such products and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with potential short-term exposures to methane sulfonic acid.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined food, water and residential exposures result in aggregate short term MOEs of 1680 for adults and 300 for children (1-2 years old). EPA's level of concern for methane sulfonic acid is a MOE of 100 or below; therefore these MOEs are not of concern.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). No intermediate-term exposure are expected from the use of methane sulfonic acid as an inert ingredient, therefore, there are no intermediate-term risk concerns.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Aggregate cancer risk was not estimated because the Agency has not identified any concerns for cancer risk due to exposure to methane sulfonic acid.

    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to methane sulfonic acid residues.

    V. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of methane sulfonic acid in or on any food commodities. EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of methane sulfonic acid that may be used in pesticide formulations applied to animals and in food-contact surface antimicrobial applications. Those limitations will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide formulation for use on animals for sale or distribution that contains greater than 3% by weight of methane sulfonic acid or any food-contact surface antimicrobial formulations for sale or distribution that contains greater than 5,000 ppm of methane sulfonic acid.

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    The Codex has not established a MRL for methane sulfonic acid.

    VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.930 and 40 CFR 180.940(a) for methane sulfonic acid (CAS Reg. No. 75-75-2) when used as an inert ingredient (acidifying agent) in pesticide formulations applied to animals at a maximum concentration not to exceed 3% by weight and when used as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils at a concentration not to exceed 5,000 ppm.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VIII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: August 6, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.930 add alphabetically the inert ingredient “Methane sulfonic acid” to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.930 Inert ingredients applied to animals; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert ingredients Limits Uses *         *         *         *         *         *         * Methane sulfonic acid (CAS Reg. No. 75-75-2) Not to exceed 3.0% by weight in pesticide formulation Acidifying agent. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    3. In § 180.940 add alphabetically the inert ingredient “Methane sulfonic acid” to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 180.940 Tolerance exemptions for active and inert ingredients for use in antimicrobial formulations (Food-contact surface sanitizing solutions).

    (a) * * *

    Pesticide chemical CAS reg. No. Limits *         *         *         *         *         *         * Methane sulfonic acid 75-75-2 When ready for use, the end use concentration is not to exceed 5,000 ppm. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-20252 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 1837 and 1852 RIN 2700-AE01 and 2700-AE09 NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Correction AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    ACTION:

    Correcting amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) published a final rule in the Federal Register on Thursday, March 12, 2015 (80 FR 12935), as part of the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NFS) regulatory review. That final rule became effective on April 13, 2015, however the date of effectivity for the affected clauses was inadvertently omitted. This document corrects the final rule by adding the missing clause dates and makes other minor editorial changes.

    DATES:

    Effective: August 19, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Manuel Quinones, NASA, Office of Procurement, Contract and Grant Policy Division, via email at [email protected], or telephone (202) 358-2143.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    NASA published a final rule in the Federal Register on March 12, 2015, which became effective April 13, 2015. This rule is part of the NASA FAR Supplement regulatory review. As published, the rule contains errors due to inadvertent omission of affected clause dates and other errors that need to be corrected. Specifically, clause date of “APR 2015” is to be added to NFS 1852.215-77, 1852.219-11, 1852.219-18, 1852.219-75, 252.219-77, 1852.219-79, 1852.223-71, 1852.223-73, 1852.227-11, 1852.227-14, 1852.227-70, 1852.227-71, 1852.227-72, 1852.227-84, 1852.227-85, 1852.227-86, and 1852.227-88. NASA is not altering the text of these NFS clauses, but merely adding the missing clause dates. Additionally, NFS clause prescription at 1809.206-71 was correctly removed. However, the corresponding clause at 1852.209-70 should also have been removed and reserved at amendatory instruction no. 66 on page 12945 (80 FR 12945).

    List of Subject in 48 CFR Parts 1837 and 1852

    Government procurement.

    Manuel Quinones, Federal Register Liaison.

    Accordingly, 48 CFR part 1852 is amended as follows:

    PART 1852—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 1. The authority citation for part 1852 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    1852.215-77, 1852.219-11, 1852.219-18, 1852.219-75, 252.219-77, 1852.219-79, 1852.223-71, 1852.223-73, 1852.227-70, 1852.227-71, 1852.227-72, 1852.227-84, 1852.227-85, 1852.227-86, and 1852.227-88 [Amended]
    2. Amend sections 1852.215-77, 1852.219-11, 1852.219-18, 1852.219-75, 252.219-77, 1852.219-79, 1852.223-71, 1852.223-73, 1852.227-70, 1852.227-71, 1852.227-72, 1852.227-84, 1852.227-85, 1852.227-86, and 1852.227-88 by removing “MONTH/YEAR” and adding “APR 2015” in its place.
    1852.209-70 [Removed and Reserved]
    3. Remove and reserve section 1852.209-70.
    4. Amend section 1852.216-88: a. By removing clause date of “JAN 1997” and adding “APR 2015” in its place. b. By revising the second sentence in paragraph (a)(1). The revision reads as follows:
    1852.216-88 Performance incentive.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * * The performance incentive becomes effective when the item is put into service. * * *

    1852.223-76 [Amended]
    5. Amend section 1852.223-76 by removing “http://fastweb.inel.gov/” and adding “https://fastweb.inel.gov/” in its place.
    1852.227-11 and 1852.227-14 [Amended]
    6. Amend in sections 1852.227-11 and 1852.227-14 by removing “DATE” and adding “APR 2015” in its place.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20418 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 140904754-5188-02] RIN 0648-BF27 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2015-2016 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Inseason Adjustments AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule; inseason adjustments to biennial groundfish management measures.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule announces inseason changes to management measures in the Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries. This action, which is authorized by the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP), is intended to protect overfished and depleted stocks while allowing fisheries to access more abundant groundfish stocks.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective August 14, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gretchen Hanshew, phone: 206-526-6147, fax: 206-526-6736, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Electronic Access

    This rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register Web site at https://www.federalregister.gov. Background information and documents are available at the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Web site at http://www.pcouncil.org/. Copies of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the Groundfish Specifications and Management Measures for 2015-2016 and Biennial Periods Thereafter are available from Donald McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Portland, OR 97220, phone: 503-820-2280.

    Background

    The PCGFMP and its implementing regulations at title 50 in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 660, subparts C through G, regulate fishing for over 90 species of groundfish off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. Groundfish specifications and management measures are developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), and are implemented by NMFS.

    The final rule to implement the 2015-2016 harvest specifications and management measures for most species of the Pacific coast groundfish fishery was published on March 10, 2015 (80 FR 12567).

    The Council—in coordination with Pacific Coast Treaty Indian Tribes and the States of Washington, Oregon, and California—recommended changes to current groundfish management measures at its June 10-16, 2015, meeting. Specifically, the Council recommended an increase to commercial fishery trip limits for sablefish, blackgill rockfish, big skate, Minor Shelf Rockfish, and California scorpionfish. The Council also recommended a decrease to commercial fishery trip limits for black rockfish. NMFS has determined that good cause exists to waive notice and comment for trip limit changes for sablefish, blackgill rockfish, black rockfish and big skate and this action implements those changes. However, NMFS has determined that the Council-recommended increases to trip limits for Minor Shelf Rockfish and California scorpionfish cannot be implemented without a two-meeting process and notice and comment rulemaking. Therefore, those changes are not included in this action.

    Fishery Management Measures for the Limited Entry Fixed Gear (LEFG) and Open Access (OA) Sablefish Daily Trip Limit (DTL) Fisheries North of 36° N. lat.

    To increase harvest opportunities for the LEFG and OA fixed gear sablefish DTL fisheries north of 36° N. lat., the Council considered increases to trip limits. The Council's Groundfish Management Team (GMT) made model-based landings projections for the LEFG and OA fixed gear sablefish DTL fisheries north of 36° N. lat. for the remainder of the year. These projections were based on the most recent information available. The model predicted harvest of 83 percent (196 mt) of the LEFG harvest guideline (HG) (236 mt) and 62 percent (242 mt) of the OA HG (388 mt) under current trip limits. This indicates that projected catch in both the LEFG and OA fisheries was lower than anticipated when the trip limits were initially established (93 percent (220 mt) of the LEFG HG and 92 percent (358 mt) of the OA HG). With the increase in trip limits, predicted harvest assuming medium ex-vessel price curves is 90 percent (212 mt) of the LEFG HG (236 mt) and 83 percent (323 mt) of the OA HG (388 mt). Projections for the fixed gear sablefish fisheries south of 36° N. lat. were similar to what they were anticipated to be in the biennial harvest specifications and management measures, and no requests were made by industry for changes; therefore, and no inseason actions were considered.

    Therefore, the Council recommended and NMFS is implementing trip limit changes for the LEFG and the OA sablefish DTL fisheries north of 36° N. lat. The trip limits for sablefish in the LEFG fishery north of 36° N. lat. increase from “1,025 lb (465 kg) per week, not to exceed 3,075 lb (1,394 kg) per two months” to “1,125 lb (510.3 kg) per week, not to exceed 3,375 lb (1,530 kg) per two months” beginning during period 4 through the end of the year.

    The trip limits for sablefish in the OA sablefish DTL fishery north of 36° N. lat. are increased from “300 lb (136 kg) per day, or one landing per week of up to 900 lb (408 kg), not to exceed 1,800 lb (817 kg) per two months” to “350 lb (159 kg) per day, or one landing per week of up to 1,600 lb (726 kg), not to exceed 3,200 lb (1,452 kg) per two months” during period 4 through the end of the year.

    Fishery Management Measures for Blackgill Rockfish in the Limited Entry Fixed Gear (LEFG) and Open Access (OA) Fisheries South of 40°10′ N. lat.

    Blackgill rockfish south of 40°10′ N. lat. was assessed in 2011. The 2011 assessment indicated the stock was in the precautionary zone with spawning biomass depletion estimated to be 30 percent of its unfished biomass at the start of 2011. The Council chose to leave blackgill rockfish as a stock within the Minor Slope Rockfish south complex. Beginning in 2013, the Council recommended, and NMFS established, annual HGs and management measures to keep anticipated catch of blackgill rockfish within its HG, including a species-specific sorting requirement and species-specific sub-limits. Annual HGs and trip limit management in non-IFQ fisheries continue to be utilized for management of blackgill rockfish south of 40°10′ N. lat.

    The most recently available information (2013) indicates that the Minor Slope Rockfish trip limit and the blackgill rockfish sub-limit set in 2013 kept catch of Minor Slope Rockfish south of 40°10′ N. lat. at 148 mt, which is less than 25 percent of the 2013 ACL (618 mt). Additionally, catch of blackgill was 18.5 mt, 42 percent of the 44 mt HG (LEFG HG of 26.4 mt and OA HG of 17.6 mt, combined). The same trip limits were in place in 2014, and 2014 inseason estimates indicate that similar catch patters are likely to be seen in the completed 2014 total mortality report. The best available 2015 inseason information at the June Council meeting indicated that catch of blackgill rockfish was approximately half of the amount of catch during that same time period in 2014. The Council recommended that the blackgill rockfish sub-limit be increased modestly to reduce regulatory discards since catch was well below the HG in 2013 and was likely similar in scale in 2014 and because catch in 2015 is below the levels observed in 2014. In addition, a modest increase in the sub-limit will likely reduce regulatory discards of blackgill rockfish when caught incidentally with co-occurring species in the Minor Slope Rockfish complex.

    Therefore, the Council recommended, and NMFS is implementing, an increase to blackgill rockfish sub-limits for the LEFG and the OA fisheries south of 40°10′ N. lat. The blackgill rockfish sub-limit, within the overall trip limit for Minor Slope Rockfish complex south of 40°10′ N. lat., is increased in the LEFG fishery from “40,000 lb (18,144 kg) per two months, of which no more than 1,375 lb (624 kg) may be blackgill rockfish” to “40,000 lb (18,144 kg) per two months, of which no more than 1,600 lb (726 kg) may be blackgill rockfish” beginning during period 4 through the end of the year.

    The blackgill rockfish sub-limit, within the overall trip limit for Minor Slope Rockfish complex south of 40°10′ N. lat., is increased in the OA fishery from “10,000 lb (4,536 kg) per two months, of which no more than 475 lb (216 kg) may be blackgill rockfish” to “10,000 lb (4,536 kg) per two months, of which no more than 550 lb (250 kg) may be blackgill rockfish” beginning during period 4 through the end of the year.

    Fishery Management Measures for Black Rockfish in the Limited Entry Fixed Gear (LEFG) and Open Access (OA) Fisheries Between 42° N. lat. and 40°10′ N. lat.

    Black rockfish are caught in nearshore commercial and recreational fisheries. Black rockfish is a healthy stock that co-occurs with nearshore overfished rockfish species (e.g., canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish). Catch of black rockfish is managed, in part, to keep catch of co-occurring overfished species within the management targets for the nearshore fishery and the state of California. The best available information on commercial black rockfish catch in northern California through June 12, 2015, indicates that harvest so far in 2015 (58 mt) is much higher than what it was in this area for the entire year of 2014 (34 mt).

    In 2014, the shoreward boundary of the non-trawl rockfish conservation area (RCA) in this area between 42° N. lat. and 40°10′ N. lat. was the boundary line approximating the 20 fm depth contour. For 2015, the boundary line off northern California was shifted seaward to the boundary line approximating the 30 fm depth contour, opening the area to nearshore fishing between 20 fm line and the 30 fm line for the first time since 2009 (80 FR 12567, March 10, 2015). This change in the depth restriction in the non-trawl commercial fisheries is providing additional access to nearshore stocks, and may be part of the reason for the increased black rockfish landings in 2015 compared to 2014. Additionally, the change in depth restriction may be changing bycatch rates of co-occurring overfished species in the nearshore fishery, but little information is available to inform bycatch rates inseason.

    Based on the best available information, catch of black rockfish is much higher in 2015 compared to 2014. To reduce projected catch of co-occurring overfished species and reduce the risk of exceeding HGs for those overfished species, the Council considered reductions to black rockfish trip limits between 42° N. lat. and 40°10′ N. lat. The Council recommended decreasing the black rockfish trip limit to the same limit that was in effect when the northern California non-trawl RCA shoreward boundary was at the 30 fm line, as it is in 2015.

    Therefore, the Council recommended and NMFS is implementing decreased black rockfish trip limits for the LEFG and the OA fisheries between 42° N. lat. and 40°10′ N. lat. The black rockfish trip limit, within the overall trip limit for Minor Nearshore Rockfish complex, is decreased in the LEFG and OA fisheries from “8,500 lb (3,856 kg) per two months of which no more than 1,200 lb (544 kg) may be species other than black rockfish” to “6,000 lb (2,722 kg) per two months of which no more than 1,200 lb (544 kg) may be species other than black rockfish” beginning during period 4 through the end of the year.

    Fishery Management Measures for Big Skate in the Shorebased IFQ Program

    Before 2015, big skate was managed as a component stock within the Other Fish complex. The big skate OFL estimate, along with the estimated OFLs for the other species in the complex, contributed to the OFL specified in regulation for the Other Fish complex. Species managed in complexes do not have OFLs specified in regulation. Therefore, the best estimate of a sustainable harvest for a single species that is managed in a complex is referred to as an “OFL contribution,” since the OFL for the complex is the sum of the contributing OFLs for all the component species.

    During development of the 2015-2016 harvest specifications and management measures, best estimates of mortality indicated that harvest of big skate was 18 percent of the big skate OFL contribution and that it was not in need of conservation and management. Big skate was removed from the Other Fish complex and designated as an ecosystem component (EC) species (80 FR 12567, March 10, 2015). If the Council had chosen to keep big skate in the fishery, with species specific harvest specifications, the 2015 big skate OFL endorsed by the Scientific Statistical Committee (SSC) would have been 541 mt. Since the Council chose to designate this species as an EC species, the big skate OFL estimate became unnecessary. Since development and implementation of the 2015-2016 harvest specifications and management measures, new information indicated that mortality of big skate is approaching or exceeding the 2014 big skate OFL contribution.

    At its April 2015 meeting, the Council recommended management measures to reduce mortality of big skate and reduce the risk of overfishing the stock. At that time, the best estimate of sustainable harvest for big skate was thought to be the 2014 OFL contribution. The Council recommended and NMFS implemented a trip limit reduction for big skate in the Shorebased IFQ Program and best estimates at that time indicated that total mortality of big skate through the end of 2015 under that trip limit structure would be 441 mt, 17 mt lower than the 2014 OFL contribution of 458 mt (80 FR 31858, June 4, 2015).

    The analysis by the Council's GMT assumed 100 percent mortality of discarded big skate and assumed that, once a trip limit was reached, encounters of big skate would cease and no additional landings or discards would occur. The GMT acknowledged several issues with these assumptions, but noted that the April analysis was limited in scope due to time constraints. The Council acknowledged that the mortality estimates and the OFL contribution both have high degrees of uncertainty, and recommended precautionary management measures for conservation of big skate. The Council also acknowledged that additional information and analyses would likely become available, and that management measures for big skate would be considered in light of emerging and improving information.

    At its June 2015 meeting, the Council considered additional analysis by the GMT, recommendations of its SSC, as well as updated fishery information, regarding big skate mortality and management measures. The West Coast Observer Program estimates that almost 80 percent of big skate caught in groundfish fisheries are discarded. Following a literature review, the SSC recommended that a 50 percent discard mortality rate for big skate caught with commercial trawl gear was more appropriate. This is consistent with the assumed discard mortality for another skate species for which trip limits are in place (longnose skate). In addition, projected estimates of big skate catch through the end of the year decreased because of reduced inseason estimates. This reduction likely resulted from an increased awareness and avoidance by the fishing fleet, and harvest projection changes resulting from the Council's improved understanding of big skate discard mortality rate.

    At its June 2015 meeting, the Council also considered information regarding the best available estimate for a sustainable harvest level of big skate in 2015. In April 2015, the Council aimed to keep mortality of big skate below the 2014 OFL contribution, the best estimate available at that time. In June, the Council was reminded that the SSC endorsed a 2015 big skate OFL in November 2013. Since the Council recommended big skate be designated as an EC species, no harvest specifications were adopted for the 2015-2016 biennial cycle. However, in light of the need to better estimate big skate mortality, as it is approaching the best OFL contribution estimates, the SSC-endorsed estimated 2015 OFL is the best available estimate of sustainable harvest. Therefore, the Council considered projected big skate mortality in 2015 compared to the estimated 2015 OFL, rather than the 2014 OFL contribution. The 541 mt estimated 2015 OFL for big skate is 83 mt higher than the 2014 OFL contribution that was used in the April 2015 GMT analyses. Therefore, the Council considered higher trip limits for big skate than those adopted in April 2015. June 2015 GMT estimates indicate that with higher trip limits for big skate of 35,000 pounds per two months, through the remainder of the year, big skate total mortality will still be below the currently available best estimate of the 2015 OFL (541 mt).

    As discussed above, the best estimate of the discard mortality rate decreased from 100 percent to 50 percent and the estimated 2015 OFL that is higher than the 2014 OFL contribution. Therefore, increases to the big skate trip limits in the IFQ fishery are warranted. The Council considered increasing the trip limit for big skate in the Shorebased IFQ Program, beginning in Period 4 (July-August). A range of trip limits was considered: 25,000 lb (11,340 kg) per two months, 30,000 lb (13,608 kg) per two months, and 35,000 lb (15,876 kg) per two months for Periods 4-6 (July-December). All alternative trip limits are anticipated to bring total mortality below the estimated 2015 OFL of 541 mt, and the estimated 2015 Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) (assuming the same P* as 2014 of 0.40) of 451 mt.

    The Council recommended, and NMFS is implementing, an increase in the big skate trip limit in the Shorebased IFQ Program from “20,000 lbs (9,072 kg) per two months” to “35,000 lb (15,876 kg) per two months” in periods 4-6 (from July through December). Best estimates indicate that total mortality of big skate through the end of 2015 under this trip limit structure would be between 414 mt and 420 mt, 121-127 mt lower than the estimated 2015 OFL contribution of 541 mt and 21-27 mt lower than the estimated 2015 ABC contribution of 441 mt. The estimated total mortality is considered as a range to account for uncertainty in how fishing behavior will change after the big skate trip limit is reached. The Council recommended a trip limit that would allow approximately a 5 percent increase in total mortality, but would still be below the estimated 2015 ABC. The increase in trip limit is intended to allow vessels opportunistically targeting big skate to continue to do so, while keeping total mortality below the estimated 2015 ABC. The Council-recommended trip limits are codified in Tables 1 (North) and 1 (South) to Subpart C.

    Classification

    This final rule makes routine inseason adjustments to groundfish fishery management measures, based on the best available information, consistent with the PCGFMP and its implementing regulations.

    This action is taken under the authority of 50 CFR 660.60(c) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    The aggregate data upon which these actions are based are available for public inspection at the Office of the Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, during business hours.

    NMFS finds good cause to waive prior public notice and comment on the revisions to groundfish management measures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Also, for the same reasons, NMFS finds 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 August 14, 2015.

    At the June Council meeting, the Council recommended that these changes be implemented as quickly as possible during the two-month cumulative limit period. There was not sufficient time after that meeting to draft this document and undergo proposed and final rulemaking before these actions need to be in effect. For the actions to be implemented in this final rule, affording the time necessary for prior notice and opportunity for public comment would prevent NMFS from managing fisheries using the best available science to approach, without exceeding, the ACLs for federally managed species in accordance with the PCGFMP and applicable law. The adjustments to management measures in this document affect commercial fisheries in Washington, Oregon and California. These increases to trip limits must be implemented as quickly as possible during the two-month cumulative limit period to allow LEFG and OA fixed gear fishermen an opportunity to harvest higher limits for: Sablefish without exceeding the ACL north of 36° N. lat.; big skate without exceeding the estimated 2015 OFL; and blackgill rockfish without exceeding the HG south of 40°10′ N. lat. The decrease to the black rockfish trip limit must be implemented by the start of the next two-month cumulative limit period, September 1, to keep catch of co-occurring overfished species within their HGs and rebuilding ACLs. It would be contrary to the public interest to delay implementation of these changes until after public notice and comment, because making this regulatory change by August 14, 2015, allows harvest as intended by the Council, consistent with the best scientific information available. These changes allow additional harvest in fisheries that are important to coastal communities while continuing to prevent ACLs of overfished and target species from being exceeded.

    No aspect of this action is controversial, and changes of this nature were anticipated in the biennial harvest specifications and management measures established for 2015-2016.

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, NMFS finds good cause to waive prior notice and comment and to waive the delay in effectiveness.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Fisheries, Fishing, and Indian fisheries.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows:

    PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES 1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

    2. Table 1 (North) and 1 (South) to part 660, subpart D, are revised to read as follows: BILLING CODE 3510-22-P ER19AU15.009 ER19AU15.010 3. Table 2 (North) and 2 (South) to part 660, subpart E, are revised to read as follows: ER19AU15.011 ER19AU15.012 ER19AU15.013 4. Table 3 (North) and 3 (South) to part 660, subpart F, are revised to read as follows: ER19AU15.014 ER19AU15.015 ER19AU15.016 ER19AU15.017
    [FR Doc. 2015-20491 Filed 8-14-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
    80 160 Wednesday, August 19, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1222 [Document Number AMS-FV-14-0082] Paper and Paper-Based Packaging Promotion, Research and Information Order; Late Payment and Interest Charges on Past Due Assessments AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposal invites comments on prescribing late payment and interest charges on past due assessments under the Paper and Paper-Based Packaging Promotion, Research and Information Order (Order). The Order is administered by the Paper and Packaging Board (Board) with oversight by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Under the Order, assessments are collected from manufacturers and importers and used for projects to promote paper and paper-based packaging. This proposal would implement authority contained in the Order that allows the Board to collect late payment and interest charges on past due assessments. Two additional changes are proposed to reflect current practices and update the Order and regulations. This action would contribute to effective administration of the program and was unanimously recommended by the Board.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposal. Comments may be submitted on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov or to the Promotion and Economics Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; facsimile: (202) 205-2800. All comments should reference the document number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made available for public inspection, including name and address, if provided, in the above office during regular business hours. Comments may also be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marlene Betts, Marketing Specialist, Promotion and Economics Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone: (202) 720-9915; or electronic mail: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposal is issued under the Order (7 CFR part 1222). The Order is authorized under the Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996 (1996 Act) (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425).

    Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules and promoting flexibility. This action has been designated as a “non-significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has waived the review process.

    Executive Order 13175

    This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation would not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and would not have significant Tribal implications.

    Executive Order 12988

    This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. Section 524 of the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7423) provides that it shall not affect or preempt any other Federal or State law authorizing promotion or research relating to an agricultural commodity.

    Under section 519 of the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7418), a person subject to an order may file a written petition with USDA stating that an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, is not established in accordance with the law, and request a modification of an order or an exemption from an order. Any petition filed challenging an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, shall be filed within two years after the effective date of an order, provision, or obligation subject to challenge in the petition. The petitioner will have the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. Thereafter, the USDA will issue a ruling on the petition. The 1996 Act provides that the district court of the United States for any district in which the petitioner resides or conducts business shall have the jurisdiction to review a final ruling on the petition, if the petitioner files a complaint for that purpose not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of USDA's final ruling.

    Background

    This proposal invites comments on prescribing late payment and interest charges on past due assessments under the Order. The Order is administered by the Board with oversight by USDA. Under the Order, assessments are collected from manufacturers and importers and used for projects to promote paper and paper-based packaging. This proposal would implement authority contained in the Order and the 1996 Act that allows the Board to collect late payment and interest charges on past due assessments. This action was unanimously recommended by the Board and would contribute to effective administration of the program.

    Section 1222.52(a) of the Order specifies that the Board's programs and expenses shall be paid by assessments on manufacturers and importers and other income or funds available to the Board. Paragraph (g) of that section specifies further that when a manufacturer or importer fails to pay the assessment within 60 calendar days of the date it is due, the Board may impose a late payment charge and interest. The late payment charge and rate of interest must be prescribed in regulations issued by the Secretary. All late assessments would be subject to the specified late payment charge and interest.

    The Order became effective on January 23, 2014. Assessment collection began on March 1, 2014. Manufacturers and importers must pay their assessments owed to the Board by the 30th calendar day of the month following the end of the quarter in which the paper and paper-based packaging was manufactured or imported. For example, assessments for paper manufactured or imported during the months of January, February and March are due to the Board by April 30.

    Entities that domestically manufacture or import to the United States less than 100,000 short tons of paper and paper-based packaging in a year are exempt from paying assessments. If an entity is both a manufacturer and an importer, the entity's combined quantity of paper and paper-based packaging manufactured and imported during a marketing year counts toward the 100,000 short ton exemption.

    Assessment funds are used for promotion activities that are intended to benefit all industry members. Thus, it is important that all assessed entities pay their assessments in a timely manner. Entities who fail to pay their assessments on time would be able to reap the benefits of Board programs at the expense of others. In addition, they would be able to utilize funds for their own use that should otherwise be paid to the Board to finance Board programs.

    Board Recommendation

    At a meeting held September 25, 2014, the Board unanimously recommended implementing the Order authority regarding late payment and interest charges. Specifically, the Board recommended that a late payment charge be imposed on any manufacturer or importer who fails to make timely remittance to the Board of the total assessments for which such manufacturer or importer is liable. The late payment charge would be imposed on any assessments not received within 60 calendar days of the date they are due. This one-time late payment charge would be equal to 10 percent of the assessments due before interest charges have accrued.

    The Board also recommended that an interest rate of 11/2 percent per month be added to the outstanding balance, including any late payment charge and accrued interest, of any accounts for which payment has not been received within 60 calendar days after the assessments are due. Interest would continue to accrue monthly until the outstanding balance is paid to the Board.

    This action is expected to help facilitate program administration by providing an incentive for entities to remit their assessments in a timely manner, with the intent of creating a fair and equitable process among all assessed entities. Accordingly, a new Subpart C would be added to the Order for provisions implementing the paper and paper-based packaging Order, and a new § 1222.520 would be added to Subpart C.

    This proposal would also make two additional changes to the Order. This proposed rule would revise the term Board as defined in § 1222.2 from the Paper and Paper-Based Packaging Board to the Paper and Packaging Board. This change would simplify the term and bring the Order in line with current industry use. Conforming changes would also be made to § 1222.40(a) and the heading immediately prior to this section where the term is also referenced. In addition, in § 1222.108, the OMB control number would be changed from 0581-NEW to 0581-0281, the control number assigned by the OMB.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS is required to examine the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on such entities.

    The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms (manufacturers and importers) as those having annual receipts of no more than $7.0 million.

    According to the Board, there are 69 manufacturers in the United States that produce the types of paper and paper-based packaging covered under the Order. Using an average price of $806 per short ton,1 a manufacturer who produces less than about 8,680 short tons of paper and paper-based packaging per year would be considered a small entity. It is estimated that no more than four manufacturers produced less than 8,680 short tons per year. Thus, the majority of manufacturers would not be considered small businesses.

    1 Industry sources do not publish information on average price for paper and paper-based packaging. A reasonable estimate for average price of paper and paper-based packaging is the value per ton of paper and paper-based packaging exports. According to U.S. Census data, the average value of paper and paper-based packaging exports in 2014 was approximately $806 per short ton.

    Based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) data, it is estimated that in 2014 there were 2,800 importers of paper and paper-based packaging. Ninety importers, or about 3 percent, imported more than $7.0 million worth of paper and paper-based packaging. Thus, the majority of importers would be considered small entities. However, all of the 20 entities that imported 100,000 short tons or more (the Order's exemption threshold) also imported more than $7.0 million worth of paper and paper-based packaging. Therefore, none of the 20 importers covered under the Order would be considered small businesses.

    Based on domestic production of approximately 66.1 million short tons in 2014 and an average price of $806 per short ton, the domestic paper and paper-based packaging industry is valued at approximately $53.3 billion. According to Customs data, the value of paper and paper-based packaging imports in 2014 was about $5.9 billion.

    This proposal invites comments on prescribing late payment and interest charges on past due assessments under the Order. The Order is administered by the Board with oversight by USDA. Under the Order, assessments are collected from manufacturers and importers and used for projects to promote paper and paper-based packaging. This rule would add a new § 1222.520 that would specify a late payment charge of 10 percent of the assessments due and interest at a rate of 11/2 percent per month on the outstanding balance, including any late payment charge and accrued interest. This section would be included in a new Subpart C—Provisions for Implementing the Paper and Paper-Based Packaging Promotion, Research and Information Order. This action was unanimously recommended by the Board and is authorized under § 1222.52(g) of the Order and section 517(e) of the 1996 Act. In addition, two additional changes are proposed to reflect current practices and update the Order and regulations. These changes are: (1) Revising the name of the Board from the Paper and Paper-Based Packaging Board to the Paper and Packaging Board; and (2) the OMB control number would be changed from 0581-NEW to 0581-0281, the control number assigned by the OMB.

    Regarding the economic impact of this proposed rule on affected entities, this action would impose no costs on manufacturers and importers who pay their assessments on time. It would merely provide an incentive for entities to remit their assessments in a timely manner. For all entities who are delinquent in paying assessments, both large and small, the charges would be applied the same. As for the impact on the industry as a whole, this action would help facilitate program administration by providing an incentive for entities to remit their assessments in a timely manner, with the intent of creating a fair and equitable process among all assessed entities.

    Additionally, as previously mentioned, the Order provides for an exemption for entities that domestically manufacture or import less than 100,000 short tons annually. It is estimated that 24 out of the 69 domestic manufacturers, or 35 percent, produce less than 100,000 short tons per year and are thus exempt from paying assessments under the Order. Of the 2,800 importers of paper and paper packaging, it is estimated that 2,780, or 99 percent, import less than 100,000 short tons per year and are also exempt from paying assessments. Thus, about 45 domestic manufacturers and 20 importers pay assessments under the Order.

    The alternative to this proposed action would be to maintain the status quo and not impose late payment and interest charges on past due assessments. However, the Board determined that implementing these charges would help facilitate program administration by encouraging entities to pay their assessments in a timely manner. The Board reviewed the late payment and interest charges applied by other research and promotion programs and concluded that a 10 percent late payment charge and interest at a rate of 11/2 percent per month on the outstanding balance would be appropriate.

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements that are imposed by the Order have been approved previously under OMB control number 0581-0281. This proposed rule would not result in a change to the information collection and recordkeeping requirements previously approved and would impose no additional reporting and recordkeeping burden on manufacturers and importers of paper and paper-based packaging.

    As with all Federal promotion programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.

    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.

    Regarding outreach efforts, the Board met on September 25, 2014, and unanimously made its recommendation. The Board's meetings, including meetings held via teleconference, are open to the public and interested persons are invited to participate and express their views.

    We have performed this initial RFA regarding the impact of this proposed action on small entities and we invite comments concerning potential effects of this action on small businesses.

    While this proposed rule set forth below has not received the approval of USDA, it has been determined that it is consistent with and would effectuate the purposes of the 1996 Act.

    A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposal. All written comments received in response to this proposed rule by the date specified will be considered prior to finalizing this action.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1222

    Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Consumer information, Marketing agreements, Paper and paper-based packaging promotion, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1222 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 1222—PAPER AND PAPER-BASED PACKAGING PROMOTION, RESEARCH AND INFORMATION ORDER 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1222 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 7411-7425; 7 U.S.C. 7401.

    2. Section 1222.2 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1222.2 Board.

    Board means the Paper and Packaging Board established pursuant to § 1222.40, or such other name as recommended by the Board and approved by the Department.

    3. Revise the undesignated center heading preceding § 1222.40 to read as follows: PAPER AND PACKAGING BOARD 4. Amend § 1222.40 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 1222.40 Establishment and membership.

    (a) Establishment of the Board. There is hereby established a Paper and Packaging Board to administer the terms and provisions of this Order. * * *

    5. Section 1222.108 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1222.108 OMB control number.

    The control number assigned to the information collection requirement in this subpart by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. is OMB control number 0581-0281.

    7. Add subpart C, consisting of § 1222.520, to read as follows: Subpart C—Provisions Implementing the Paper and Paper-Based Packaging Promotion, Research and Information Order Sec. 1222.520 Late payment and interest charges for past due assessments.
    § 1222.520 Late payment and interest charges for past due assessments.

    (a) A late payment charge shall be imposed on any manufacturer or importer who fails to make timely remittance to the Board of the total assessments for which such manufacturer or importer is liable. The late payment shall be imposed on any assessments not received within 60 calendar days of the date they are due. This one-time late payment charge shall be 10 percent of the assessments due before interest charges have accrued.

    (b) In addition to the late payment charge, 11/2 percent per month interest on the outstanding balance, including any late payment and accrued interest, will be added to any accounts for which payment has not been received by the Board within 60 calendar days after the assessments are due. Such interest will continue to accrue monthly until the outstanding balance is paid to the Board.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20437 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 381 [Docket No. FSIS-2015-0026] Classes of Poultry AGENCY:

    Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to amend the definition and standard of identity for the “roaster” or “roasting chicken” poultry class to better reflect the characteristics of “roaster” chickens in the market today. “Roasters” or “roasting chickens” are described in terms of the age and ready-to-cook (RTC) carcass weight of the bird. Genetic changes and management techniques have continued to reduce the grow-out period and increased the RTC weight for this poultry class. Therefore, FSIS is proposing to amend the “roaster” definition to remove the 8-week minimum age criterion and increase the RTC carcass weight from 5 pounds to 5.5 pounds. This action is being taken in response to a petition submitted by the National Chicken Council.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. This Web site provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments.

    Mail, including CD-ROMs, etc.: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Patriots Plaza 3, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 3782, Room 8-163A, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Hand- or courier-delivered submittals: Deliver to Patriots Plaza 3, 355 E Street SW., Room 8-163A, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Instructions: All items submitted by mail or electronic mail must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2015-0026. Comments received in response to this docket will be made available for public inspection and posted without change, including any personal information, to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Docket: For access to background documents or comments received, go to the FSIS Docket Room at Patriot's Plaza 3, 355 E St. SW., Room 8-136A, Washington, DC between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rosalyn Murphy-Jenkins, Director, FSIS Labeling and Program Delivery Division, Phone: (301) 504-0878, Fax: (202) 245-4795.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) prohibits the distribution of poultry products that are adulterated or misbranded (21 U.S.C. 458). The PPIA also authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to prescribe, among other things, definitions and standards of identity or composition for poultry products whenever the Secretary determines that such action is necessary for the protection of the public (21 U.S.C. 457(b)). Poultry classes were established by USDA to aid in labeling poultry. The classes were based primarily on the age and sex of the bird. FSIS uses poultry class standards to ensure that poultry products are labeled in a truthful and non-misleading manner.

    On November 3, 2011, FSIS published a final rule to amend the definitions and standards for the U.S. classes of poultry listed in 9 CFR 381.170(a)(1)(76 FR 68058). The 2011 final rule lowered the age definitions for five classes of poultry and removed the word “usually” from the age designation descriptions, so that the age designations are clear and enforceable (76 FR 68058, 68062). In addition to lowering the age definition for the “roaster” class, the final rule also defined a “roaster” based on a ready-to-cook (RTC) carcass weight.

    A “roaster” or “roasting chicken” (hereafter referred to as “roasters”) is defined in 9 CFR 381.170(1)(a)(iii) as “a young chicken (between 8 and 12 weeks of age), of either sex, with a ready-to-cook carcass weight of 5 pounds or more, that is tender-meated with soft, pliable, smooth-textured skin and breastbone cartilage that is somewhat less flexible than that of a broiler or fryer.” This definition was informed by data collected by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) from the segment of the industry that routinely produces “roasters,” comments received in response to a September 3, 2003, proposed rule to amend the poultry classes (68 FR 55902), and comments received in response to a 2009 supplemental proposed rule in which the Agency re-proposed to amend the “roaster” standard to establish an age range from 8 to 12 weeks and to provide for a RTC carcass weight (74 FR 3337, July 13, 2009). The 2011 final rule became effective on January 1, 2014, the uniform compliance date for FSIS labeling regulations issued between January 1 2011 and December 31, 2012 (75 FR 71344, November 23, 2010).

    NCC Petition

    On November 18, 2013—before the January 1, 2014, effective date for the final rule—the National Chicken Council (NCC) submitted a petition requesting that FSIS amend the definition and standard of identity for the “roaster” chicken class to remove the 8-week minimum age requirement and to increase the RTC carcass weight to 5.5 pounds. The petition is available on the FSIS Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/adf54579-7a18-4ab2-a9b5-88f1eef65332/Petition-National-Chicken-Council.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

    The petition specifically asked FSIS to amend 9 CFR 381.170(a)(1)(iii) to define a “roaster” as a young chicken (less than 12 weeks of age) of either sex, with an RTC carcass weight of 5.5 pounds or more, that is tender-meated with soft, pliable, smooth-textured skin and breastbone cartilage that may be somewhat less flexible than that of a “broiler” or “fryer.” The petition also requested that FSIS, as necessary, exercise enforcement discretion or stay the effective date of the “roaster” definition scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2014.

    According to the petition, the “roaster” standard established in the 2011 final rule would detract from the orderly and efficient marketing of classes of poultry because companies would be unable to label and market chickens with the RTC weight and other physical attributes of a “roaster” as “roasters” because of the minimum age requirement. The NCC asserted that improvements in breeding and poultry management techniques that have continued since FSIS published the November 2011 final rule have enabled producers to raise chickens with the characteristics of roasters in under 8 weeks.

    NCC submitted additional data in support of its petition on December 16, 2013 (available on the FSIS Web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulations/petitions). FSIS, in consultation with USDA's AMS conducted a preliminary review of the petition and supporting data. From this preliminary review, FSIS and AMS found that data show that producers are raising chickens with a RTC carcass weight of 5 pounds or more with the other physical characteristics of a “roaster” in less than 8 weeks. The data also show that in 2012, the average commercially processed chicken reached a slaughter weight of 5.95 pounds in 47 days. This amount of time is less than the 8-week minimum age for a “roaster,” although the bird's weight would exceed the 5 pound RTC minimum weight requirement. Thus, the age of these birds falls within the age range for “broilers” (i.e., under 10 weeks), but these birds have the size and other physical attributes of “roasters.” On the basis of these findings, FSIS and AMS agreed on the need to address this gap in the regulations.

    Therefore, in the December 27, 2013, edition of its Constituent Update newsletter, FSIS announced that it would allow chickens younger than 8 weeks of age to continue to be labeled and marketed as “roasters” after the new poultry class standards go into effect if these birds meet all of the other characteristics of a “roaster” in the standard. That is, they would have to have a RTC carcass weight of 5 pounds or more, be tender-meated, and have soft, pliable, smooth-textured skin that is somewhat less flexible than that of a broiler or fryer.1 FSIS also stated that it intended to propose to revise the roaster definition or reaffirm the November 2011 definition (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/newsroom/meetings/newsletters/constituent-updates/archive/2013/ConstUpdate122713).

    1 Before FSIS published the 2011 final rule, the former poultry class standards stated that roasters are “usually 3 to 5 months” but did not prohibit birds younger than 8 weeks from being labeled and marketed as “roasters.”).

    In July 2014, FSIS, in consultation with AMS, completed its review of the NCC petition. AMS verified that the data that NCC submitted to support the petition are consistent with production data that AMS collected from the poultry industry. After reviewing the available information, FSIS and AMS concluded that the data show that chickens younger than 8 weeks are consistently reaching higher average dressed weights in shorter periods of time, and that there is a trend of increasing growth rate of commercially processed chickens between 2009 and 2012, supporting the elimination of a minimum age for the “roaster” class. FSIS, in consultation with AMS, also found that the data show that, in those regions of the country where “roasters” are marketed, customers value “roasters” more highly on a pound-per-pound basis than they do “broilers,” demonstrating the need to allow birds with the physical characteristics of “roasters” to be accurately labeled as “roasters.”

    Therefore, on July 23, 2014, FSIS sent a letter to the NCC to inform the organization that FSIS had decided to grant its petition to amend the “roaster” poultry class (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/d6fba22b-271d-4204-adc6-56ab45d7b587/NCC-FSIS-Response-72314.pdf?MOD=AJPERES).

    The Proposed Rule

    FSIS is proposing to amend the poultry class standards to define a “roaster” or “roasting chicken” as a young chicken (less than 12 weeks of age) of either sex, with a ready-to-cook carcass weight of 5.5 pounds or more, that is tender-meated with soft, pliable, smooth-textured skin and breastbone cartilage that may be somewhat less flexible than that of a “broiler” or “fryer.” Removing the minimum age and increasing the RTC carcass weight for the “roaster” class, as requested in the petition, would allow birds younger than 8 weeks that have the physical characteristics of a “roaster” to continue to be labeled and marketed as “roasters.”

    As noted above, FSIS is proposing to increase the RTC carcass weight for “roasters” from 5 to 5.5 pounds, as requested in the petition. However, FSIS is soliciting comments regarding the merit of increasing the minimum RTC carcass weight from 5 pounds to 5.5 pounds and the effect that such an increase may have on small poultry producers. To be of value, the comments must provide a factual basis for or against increasing the weight requirement for “roasters.”

    Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

    This proposed rule has been designated as a “non-significant” regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866.

    Economic Impact Analysis

    This rule will not have significant costs because FSIS currently allows birds younger than 8 weeks with the physical attributes of “roasters” to be labeled as “roasters.” 2 The proposed rule would codify present practices and would not impose new requirements on establishments. For consumers, it would ensure that the labels for chickens with the characteristics of “roaster” are truthful and not misleading, and, consequently, consumers will be able to make informed purchase decisions.

    2 Food Safety and Inspection Service, Correspondence, July 23, 2014. Available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/d6fba22b-271d-4204-adc6-56ab45d7b587/NCC-FSIS-Response-72314.pdf?MOD=AJPERES. See Constituent Update, December 27, 2013, available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/newsroom/meetings/newsletters/constituent-updates/archive/2013/ConstUpdate122713.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment

    The FSIS Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in the United States, as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

    FSIS projects that this rule will not result in additional costs to the industry because FSIS currently allows birds younger than 8 weeks with the physical attributes of “roasters” to be labeled as “roasters.” 3

    3 Food Safety and Inspection Service, Correspondence, July 23, 2014. Accessed here: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/d6fba22b-271d-4204-adc6-56ab45d7b587/NCC-FSIS-Response-72314.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    FSIS has reviewed this rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and has determined that the information collection related to labeling has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 0583-0092.

    FSIS does not anticipate many label changes due to the proposed change to the “roaster” definition because establishments that produce chickens that comply with the proposed “roaster” poultry class standard are already labeling these birds as “roasters.”

    E-Government Act

    FSIS and USDA are committed to achieving the purposes of the E-Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601, et seq.) by, among other things, promoting the use of the Internet and other information technologies, and providing increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under this rule: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) no administrative proceedings will be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

    Executive Order 13175

    This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this proposed regulation will not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and will not have significant Tribal implications.

    USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

    No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

    How To File a Complaint of Discrimination

    To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

    Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

    Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, Fax: (202) 690-7442, Email: [email protected]

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    Additional Public Notification

    Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

    FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

    List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 381

    Food grades and standards, Poultry and poultry products.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, FSIS proposes to amend 9 CFR part 381, as follows:

    PART 381—POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 381 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 138f; 7 U.S.C. 450; 21 U.S.C. 451-470; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.

    2. Section 381.170 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
    § 381.170 Standards for kinds and classes, and for cuts of raw poultry.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iii) Roaster or roasting chicken. A “roaster” or “roasting chicken” is a young chicken (less than 12 weeks of age) of either sex, with a ready-to-cook carcass weight of 5.5 pounds or more, that is tender-meated with soft, pliable, smooth-textured skin and breastbone cartilage that is somewhat less flexible than that of a broiler or fryer.

    Done at Washington, DC, on August 12, 2015. Alfred V. Almanza, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20433 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3141; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-242-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracking in the fuselage frame at a certain location. This proposed AD would require inspections for cracking in the fuselage frame, left and right sides, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fuselage frame fatigue cracking that could result in loss of structural integrity and the inability to sustain loading conditions.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3141.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3141; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5233; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-3141; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-242-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We have received reports of cracking in the fuselage frame at Station (STA) 1440, stringer S-24L. The airplane had 36,890 total flight cycles and 78,922 total flight hours. The cracking was discovered during unrelated local repairs. An investigation has determined the cracking may have been caused by fatigue. The cracking initiated in the fuselage frame at the corner radius of the fuselage frame opening for the stringer. It continued to the fastener hole common to the fuselage frame, splice plate, and fail safe chord. The cracking was not visible because it was completely hidden by the splice plate on one side and the fail safe chord on the other side.

    Fuselage frame fatigue cracking could result in loss of structural integrity and the inability to sustain loading conditions.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0099, dated September 18, 2014. The service information describes procedures for detailed and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking in the fuselage frame at stringer 24 and stringer 25, left and right sides. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.” Refer to his service information for details on the procedures and compliance times.

    Difference Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0099, dated September 18, 2014, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:

    • In accordance with a method that we approve; or

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

    Explanation of “RC” Steps in Service Information

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

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 652 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspection 68 to 83 work-hours × $85 per hour = Up to $7,055 per inspection cycle $0 Up to $7,055 per inspection cycle Up to $4,599,860 per inspection cycle.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-3141; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-242-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 5, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB, -200PF, and -300 airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracking in the fuselage frame at Station (STA) 1440, stringer S-24L. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fuselage frame fatigue cracking that could result in loss of structural integrity and the inability to sustain loading conditions.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0099, dated September 18, 2014, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, do detailed and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking in the fuselage frames at stringers S-24 and S-25, left and right sides, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0099, dated September 18, 2014.

    (1) If cracking is not found, repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight cycles.

    (2) If any cracking is found, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. Repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight cycles in unrepaired areas.

    (h) Exception to Service Information Specifications

    Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0099, dated September 18, 2014, specifies a compliance time “after the Original Issue date of this Service Bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (4) Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) apply.

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

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5233; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington on August 10, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20265 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3142; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-003-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of hydraulic contamination of the power control unit (PCU) electro-hydraulic servo valves (EHSVs) used in the flight control system; this contamination caused a restriction in the EHSVs resulting in the display of status messages from the engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS). This proposed AD would require installing markers to limit the hydraulic system fluid used to a specific brand, doing hydraulic fluid tests of the hydraulic systems, replacing hydraulic system fluid if necessary, and doing all applicable related investigative and corrective actions. We are proposing this AD to prevent the failure of flight control hydraulic PCUs, which could lead to reduced controllability of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3142.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3142; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fnu Winarto, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6659; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-3142; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-003-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We received reports of the display of status messages from the engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS). Boeing and the actuation system supplier determined these messages are displayed when electro-hydraulic servo valves (EHSVs) of the power control units (PCUs) of the primary flight control system are restricted due to the accumulation of particle deposits. Failures have only occurred on airplanes operated with Skydrol LD-4 hydraulic fluid. Changing the hydraulic fluid to HyJet V would reduce the rate of particle deposit accumulation. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the eventual failure of flight control hydraulic PCUs, which could lead to reduced controllability of the airplane.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270026-00, Issue 001, dated November 25, 2014. This service information describes procedures for installing markers to limit the hydraulic system fluid used to a specific brand, doing hydraulic fluid tests of the hydraulic systems, replacing the hydraulic system fluid if necessary, and related investigative and corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Refer to this service information for details on the procedures and compliance times.

    The phrase “related investigative actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Related investigative actions” are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary actions, and (2) further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.

    The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

    Explanation of “RC” Steps in Service Information

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

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 11 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Installing markers 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $95 $265 $2,915 Test and replace left, center, and right hydraulic system fluid 104 work-hours × $85 per hour = $8,840 1,020 9,860 108,460

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replace power control unit of elevator 9 × $85 per hour = $765 $108,000 $108,765 Replace power control unit of aileron 9 × $85 per hour = $765 118,000 118,765

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-3142; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-003-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 5, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270026-00, Issue 001, dated November 25, 2014.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Control Systems.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This proposed AD was prompted by reports of hydraulic contamination of the power control unit (PCU) electro-hydraulic servo valves (EHSVs) used in the flight control system. This contamination caused a restriction in the EHSVs resulting in the display of status messages from the engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS). We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of flight control hydraulic PCUs, which could lead to reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Marker Installation

    Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, install markers to only allow servicing of hydraulic systems with HyJet V hydraulic fluid, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270026-00, Issue 001, dated November 25, 2014.

    (h) Fluid Tests of the Left, Right, and Center Hydraulic Systems

    For airplanes identified by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270026-00, Issue 001, dated November 25, 2014, as Group 1, Configuration 2, Group 2: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do hydraulic fluid tests of the left, right, and center hydraulic systems, replace the hydraulic system fluid, if necessary, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270026-00, Issue 001, dated November 25, 2014. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions within 36 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Fnu Winarto, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6659; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 10, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20267 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1138; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-3] Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace; Van Nuys, CA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace at Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys, CA. After reviewing the airspace, the FAA found the need to increase the Class D airspace and Class E surface areas for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for arriving and departing aircraft at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the satellite airports also would be adjusted for Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace as well as noting a name change for Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-1138; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-3, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Haga, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4563.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class D and Class E airspace at Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys, CA.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-1138; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-3.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the “ADDRESSES” section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace at Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys, CA. A review of the airspace revealed additional Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace necessary to support instrument arrival procedures at the airport. Class D airspace would extend upward from the surface to but not including 3,000 feet within a 4.3-mile radius of Van Nuys Airport excluding that airspace within the Bob Hope Airport, Burbank, CA, formerly Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport, CA, Class C airspace area, and excluding that airspace within a 1.8-mile radius of Whiteman Airport, Los Angeles, CA. Class E surface area airspace would extend upward from the surface within a 4.3-mile radius of Van Nuys Airport excluding that airspace within the Bob Hope Airport, Burbank, CA, formerly Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport, CA, Class C airspace area, and excluding that airspace within a 1.8-mile radius of Whiteman Airport, Los Angeles, CA. The geographic coordinates for both airports would be adjusted to be in concert with the FAAs aeronautical data base.

    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 and 6002, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows:

    Paragraph 5000: Class D Airspace.

    AWP CA D Van Nuys, CA [Modified] Van Nuys, Van Nuys Airport, CA (lat. 34°12′35″ N., long. 118°29′24″ W.) Burbank, Bob Hope Airport, CA (lat. 34°12′03″ N., long. 118°21′31″ W.) Los Angeles, Whiteman Airport, CA (lat. 34°15′34″ N., long. 118°24′48″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to but not including 3,000 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Van Nuys Airport, excluding that airspace within the Bob Hope Airport, CA, Class C airspace area, and excluding that airspace within a 1.8-mile radius of Whiteman Airport, CA. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6002: Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. AWP CA E2 Van Nuys, CA [Modified] Van Nuys, Van Nuys Airport, CA (lat. 34°12′35″ N., long. 118°29′24″ W.) Burbank, Bob Hope Airport, CA (lat. 34°12′03″ N., long. 118°21′31″ W.) Los Angeles, Whiteman Airport, CA (lat. 34°15′34″ N., long. 118°24′48″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.3-mile radius of Van Nuys Airport, excluding that airspace within the Bob Hope Airport, CA, Class C airspace area, and excluding that airspace within a 1.8-mile radius of Whiteman Airport, CA.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 6, 2015 Christopher Ramirez, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20295 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1140; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-5] Proposed Revocation of Class E Airspace; Burbank, CA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to remove Class E surface area airspace designated as an extension to the Class C airspace at Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport, Burbank, CA. After reviewing the airspace, the FAA found no standard instrument approach procedures requiring Class E surface area airspace designated as an extension to the Class C airspace.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-1140; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-5, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Haga, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4563.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would remove Class E airspace at Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport, Burbank, CA.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-1140; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-5.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by removing Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class C airspace at Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport, Burbank, CA. A review of the airspace revealed removal necessary due to no standard instrument approach procedures requiring Class E surface area airspace designated as an extension to the Class C airspace.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6003 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6003: The Class E Airspace Areas Listed Below Consist of Airspace Extending Upward From the Surface Designated as an Extension to a Class C Surface Area AWP CA E3 Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport, CA [Removed] Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 6, 2015. Christopher Ramirez, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20294 Filed 8-18-15; 08:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 1500 [Docket No. CPSC-2015-0022] Petition Requesting Rulemaking on Products Containing Organohalogen Flame Retardants AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of petition for rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or “Commission”) received a petition requesting that the Commission initiate rulemaking under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (“FHSA”) to declare several categories of products containing additive organohalogen flame retardants to be “banned hazardous substances.” The Commission invites written comments concerning the petition.

    DATES:

    The Office of the Secretary must receive comments on the petition by October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2015-0022, by any of the following methods:

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

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

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

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, and insert the docket number, CPSC-2015-0022, into the “Search” box, and follow the prompts. A copy of the petition is available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. CPSC-2015-0022, Supporting and Related Materials.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Todd Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-6833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission received a petition requesting that the Commission initiate rulemaking under the FHSA to declare several categories of products containing additive organohalogen flame retardants to be “banned hazardous substances.” Specifically, the request asks the Commission to declare that:

    • Any durable infant or toddler product, children's toy, child care article, or other children's product (other than children's car seats) that contains additive organohalogen flame retardants, is a “banned hazardous substance”;

    • Any article of upholstered furniture sold for use in residences and containing additive organohalogen flame retardants is a “hazardous substance” and a “banned hazardous substance”;

    • Any mattress or mattress pad with additive organohalogen flame retardants is a “hazardous substance” and a “banned hazardous substance”; and

    • Any electronic device with additive organohalogen flame retardants in its plastic casing is a “hazardous substance” and a “banned hazardous substance.”

    The petition was filed by Earthjustice and the Consumer Federation of America, which are joined by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Women's Association, Consumers Union, Green Science Policy Institute, International Association of Fire Fighters, Kids in Danger, Philip Landrigan, M.D., M.P.H., League of United Latin American Citizens, Learning Disabilities Association of America, and Worksafe.

    Petitioners assert that additive organohalogen flame retardants are used extensively in the consumer products categories that would be covered by their rulemaking request. Petitioners further assert that, based on the physico-chemical properties of additive organohalogen flame retardants, all such chemicals in this class will migrate out of consumer products and persist in the indoor environment. According to petitioners, because organohalogen flame retardants are, as a class, foreign to the human body and inherently toxic due to their physical, chemical, and biological properties, human exposure to these chemicals will result in adverse human health impacts. Finally, petitioners provide data and information regarding adverse human health impacts, which include reproductive impairment, neurological impacts, endocrine disruption and interference with thyroid hormone action, genotoxicity, cancer, and immune disorders.

    Petitioners assert that declaring the specified categories of products containing additive organohalogen flame retardants to be “banned hazardous substances” is necessary to adequately protect public health and safety. More specifically, petitioners assert that action short of a ban under the FHSA would not adequately protect the public health and safety because warning labeling cannot adequately prevent or control exposure to flame retardants that migrate from products into homes. Furthermore, petitioners argue that the ban must apply to the entire class of additive organohalogen flame retardants because banning only individual chemicals within that class would allow other inherently toxic chemicals within that class to be used.

    By this notice, the Commission seeks comments concerning this petition. Interested parties may obtain a copy of the petition by writing or calling the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923. A copy of the petition is also available for viewing under “Supporting and Related Materials” in www.regulations.gov under this docket number, Docket No. CPSC-2015-0022.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20454 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-108214-15] RIN 1545-BM69 Exception From Passive Income for Certain Foreign Insurance Companies; Hearing AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public hearing on notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides a notice of public hearing on proposed regulations that provide guidance regarding when a foreign insurance company's income is excluded from the definition of passive income under section 1297(b)(2)(B).

    DATES:

    The public hearing is being held on Friday, September 18, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. The IRS must receive outlines of the topics to be discussed at the public hearing by Wednesday, August 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public hearing is being held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building.

    Send Submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-108214-15), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-108214-15), Couriers Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224 or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (REG-108214-15).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations, Josephine Firehock at (202) 317-4932; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing Oluwafunmilayo Taylor at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject of the public hearing is the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-108214-15) that was published in the Federal Register on Friday, April 24, 2015 (80 FR 22954).

    The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing that submitted written comments by July 23, 2015, must submit an outline of the topics to be addressed and the amount of time to be denoted to each topic by Wednesday, August 19, 2015.

    A period of 10 minutes is allotted to each person for presenting oral comments. After the deadline for receiving outlines has passed, the IRS will prepare an agenda containing the schedule of speakers. Copies of the agenda will be made available, free of charge, at the hearing or in the Freedom of Information Reading Room (FOIA RR) (Room 1621) which is located at the 11th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., entrance, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.

    Because of access restrictions, the IRS will not admit visitors beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
    [FR Doc. 2015-20468 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-115452-14] RIN 1545-BM12 Disguised Payments for Services; Correction AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Correction to a notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains corrections to a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-115452-14) that was published in the Federal Register on Thursday, July 23, 2015 (80 FR 43652). The proposed regulations are relating to disguised payments for services under section 707(a)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. The proposed regulations provide guidance to partnerships and their partners regarding when an arrangement will be treated as a disguised payment for services.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing for the notice of proposed rulemaking published at 80 FR 43625, July 23, 2015, are still being accepted and must be received by October 21, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jaclyn Goldberg at (202) 317-6850 (not a toll free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-115452-14) that is the subject of these corrections is under section 707 of the Internal Revenue Code.

    Need for Correction

    As published, the notice of proposed (REG-115452-14) contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.

    Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-115452-14), that was the subject of FR Doc. 2015-17828, is corrected as follows:

    1. On page 43652, in the preamble, first column, under the caption ADDRESSES, the eleventh line of the paragraph, the language “Washington, DC, or sent electronically, ” is corrected to read “Washington, DC, 20224 or sent electronically,”.

    2. On page 43653, in the preamble, first column, the tenth line from the bottom of the first full paragraph, the language “gross income allocation in a nonpartner” is corrected to read “gross income allocation in a non-partner”.

    3. On page 43655, in the preamble, second column, the third line from the bottom of the second full paragraph, the language “66-95 and revise Rev. Rul. 69-180,” is corrected to read “66-95 and Rev. Rul. 69-180,”.

    4. On page 43657, in the preamble, third column, under the paragraph heading “Drafting Information” the third line of the paragraph, the language “Goldberg of the Office Assistant Chief” is corrected to read “Goldberg of the Office Associate Chief”.

    § 1.707-2 [Corrected]

    5. On page 46358, column 3, paragraph (c), the eighth and ninth lines, the language “arrangement constitutes in whole or in part a payment for services. The” is corrected to read “arrangement constitutes (in whole or in part) a payment for services. The.”.

    6. On page 43659, column 1, paragraph (d) Example 1, the twelfth line, the language “first two years of partnership's operations.” is corrected to read “first two years of the partnership's operations.”.

    7. On page 43660, column 1, paragraph (d), Example 3 (iv), the sixteenth line, the language “the presence or absence of entrepreneurial” is corrected to read “the presence or absence of significant entrepreneurial”.

    8. On page 43660, column 1, paragraph (d), Example 4 (ii), the last line of the column, the language “entrepreneurial risk. The special allocation to” is corrected to read “significant entrepreneurial risk. The special allocation to”.

    9. On page 43660, column 3, paragraph (d), Example 6 (ii), the fourth line from the bottom of the column, the language “waiver of the partnership. The ABC” is corrected to read “waiver of the fee. The ABC”.

    Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
    [FR Doc. 2015-20476 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0131; FRL-9930-17-Region-6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Major Source Permitting State Implementation Plan AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of revisions to the Louisiana New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Louisiana designee. These revisions are updates to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) permit programs.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before September 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0131, by one of the following methods:

    http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions.

    Email: Stephanie Kordzi at [email protected]

    Mail or delivery: Stephanie Kordzi, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0131. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information through http://www.regulations.gov or email, if you believe that it is CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means that the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment along with any disk or CD-ROM submitted. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    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). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below or Bill Deese at 214-665-7253.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Kordzi, Telephone (214) 665-7520, email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

    Table of Contents I. Summary of State SIP Submittals for Chapters 5 and 6 Air Permits Program A. July 25, 1997, Submittal B. June 22, 1998, Submittal C. February 2, 2000, Submittal D. January 27, 2003, Submittal E. June 15, 2005, Submittal F. December 20, 2005, Submittal G. May 5, 2006, Submittal H. July 20, 2007, Submittal I. November 9, 2007, Submittal J. August 14, 2009, Submittal K. May 16, 2011, Submittal L. February 27, 2013, Submittal II. Evaluation A. Revisions to the NNSR and PSD Air Permit Procedures B. Revisions to the NNSR and PSD Programs for the NSR Reform Rule C. LDEQ's Clarification Letter D. Revisions to the NNSR and PSD Programs for PM2.5 Implementation E. Emission Reduction Credits (ERC) Banking Revisions F. Does the proposed approval of the Louisiana Air Permit Procedure Revisions or ERC Banking Revisions interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act? III. Proposed Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Summary of State SIP Submittals for Chapters 5 and 6 Air Permits Program

    The Clean Air Act at section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to develop and submit to the EPA for approval into the state SIP, preconstruction review programs applicable to new and modified stationary sources of air pollutants for attainment and nonattainment areas that cover both major and minor new sources and modifications, collectively referred to as the NSR SIP. The CAA NSR SIP program is composed of three separate programs: PSD, NNSR, and Minor NSR. PSD is established in part C of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that are designated as meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), i.e., “attainment areas,” as well as areas designated as “unclassifiable” because there is insufficient information to determine if the area meets the NAAQS. The NNSR SIP program is established in part D of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that are designated as not being in attainment of the NAAQS, i.e., “nonattainment areas.” The Minor NSR SIP program addresses construction or modification activities that do not emit, or have the potential to emit, beyond certain major source thresholds and thus do not qualify as “major” and applies regardless of the designation of the area in which a source is located. This particular SIP proposed action addresses only the PSD and NNSR major permitting programs.

    The EPA regulations, 40 CFR 51.160-51.166, contain the criteria that states must satisfy for the EPA to approve the NSR programs as part of the SIP. In addition, there are several provisions in 40 CFR part 51 that apply generally to all SIP revisions. 40 CFR 51.160 establishes the enforceable procedures that must be a part of a NSR program. Sections 51.160-51.164 require a SIP revision to demonstrate that the adopted rules will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Based upon our evaluation of the submittals, the EPA has concluded that the regulatory submittals, as ultimately revised, meet the requirements of the CAA section 110(a). Below are summaries of the individual SIP submittals from Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ).

    A. July 25, 1997, Submittal

    The LDEQ submitted Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) rule changes made in 1996. It includes final revised regulation LAC 33:III, sections 501, 504, 509, and 517. Section 504 is already part of the Louisiana SIP approved by the EPA on September 30, 2002, 2002 at 67 FR 61270. The EPA will act on section 517 in a separate action in the future.

    B. June 22, 1998, Submittal

    The LDEQ submitted rule changes made in 1997. It includes changes to sections 501, 509, and 517. The EPA will act on sections 501 and 517 in a separate action in the future.

    C. February 2, 2000, Submittal

    The LDEQ submitted rule changes made in 1998. It includes sections 509 and 603.

    D. January 27, 2003, Submittal

    The LDEQ submitted rule changes made from 1999-2001. It includes section 509.B.2., which addresses certain Parishes as nonattainment for ozone. Sections 613 and 615 were already approved as part of the SIP on September 27, 2002, at 67 FR 60877.

    E. June 15, 2005, Submittal

    The LDEQ submitted rule changes made in 2005 for Baton Rouge in section 504.A.6., covering the nonattainment NSR procedures.

    F. December 20, 2005, Submittal

    The LDEQ submitted rule changes made in 2005 concerning the NSR Reform Program in sections 504 and 509. The submitted rules include, among other things, provisions for baseline emissions calculations, an actual-to-projected actual methodology for calculating emissions changes, options for plantwide applicability limits, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The changes do not include any portion of the Federal NSR Reform rule that was vacated by the US District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court on June 24, 2005, concerning Clean Unit applicability test and Pollution Control Projects.

    G. May 5, 2006, Submittal

    The LDEQ submitted rule changes made in 2005. It includes sections 501, 504, 505, 507, 509, and 613. The EPA will act on section 501, a minor NSR rule, and section 507, a title V rule that is not part of the SIP, in separate actions in the future. The EPA returned section 505 to LDEQ because it addresses the Acid Rain Program; the Acid Rain Program is not a title I program and therefore should not be included in the Louisiana SIP.

    H. July 20, 2007, Submittal

    The LDEQ submitted a revision to the SIP's Alternative Emission Reduction Plan (“Bubble”) for Union Carbide Corporation, Taft Plant reflecting LDEQ's rescission of permit no. 1836T, effective on March 12, 2007. The EPA is proposing to approve this revision that codifies LDEQ's rescission of the permit for the alternative emission reduction plan (“Bubble”) for Union Carbide Corporation, Taft Plant.

    I. November 9, 2007, Submittal

    The LDEQ submitted rule changes made in 2006. It includes sections 501, 504, 509, 513, 531, and 607. The EPA will act on sections 501, 513 and 531 in a separate action in the future because they concern minor NSR. In addition, on October 15, 2014, LDEQ removed from our consideration section 504.M.

    J. August 14, 2009, Submittal

    The LDEQ submitted rule changes made in 2007, that included sections 501, 504, 505, 506, and 507. The EPA proposes to approve section 504 which contains a revision that requires all information submitted by air permittees be sent to the Office of Environmental Services.

    The EPA will act on section 501 in a separate action in the future because it concerns minor NSR. The EPA will return section 505 to LDEQ because it addresses the Acid Rain Program Permitting Requirements, which are not part of a SIP. The approved the revisions to Section 506 on April 17, 2014 are found at 79 FR 21631. The EPA will act on section 507 in a separate action in the future because it concerns the title V program that is not part of a SIP.

    The submittal also contains a rulemaking petition for the repeal of section 510, which was never part of the SIP. The repeal affects sections 603, 605, 607, 613, and 615 because those sections reference to LAC 33:III.510. In addition, to be consistent with the change to section 504, a change was made to section 613, which dictates that reports be submitted to the Office of Environmental Services.

    K. May 16, 2011, Submittal

    The LDEQ submitted rule changes to sections 504 and 509 to address the PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule. The rule submittal also revises the regulatory definition of “regulated pollutant” to address any pollutant for which there is a NAAQS and precursors to the formation of such pollutant when identified for regulation by the EPA. For NSR Reform purposes, LDEQ also repealed the definition of malfunction in response to the EPA's concerns expressed in our January 24, 2008, letter. The repeal of the definition addressed our concerns.

    L. February 27, 2013, Submittal

    The LDEQ submitted revisions to section 509 that update the PSD rule to implement the Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5) Increments.

    Table 1 below summarizes the changes that are in the SIP revision submittals. A summary of our evaluation of each section and the basis for our proposed approval is included in this rulemaking. The accompanying Technical Support Document (TSD) includes a detailed evaluation of the submittals and our rationale. The TSD may be accessed online at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0131.

    Table 1—Summary of Each NSR SIP Submittal Affected by This Action Title of SIP submittal Date submitted to EPA Date of State adoption Regulations affected Air Permit Procedure Revisions 7/25/1997 1996 Sections 501, and 509.
  • Section 504 was approved by EPA into the SIP on 09/30/2002 (67 FR 61270).
  • Air Permit Procedure Revisions 6/22/1998 1997 Section 509. Air Permit Procedure and ERC Banking Revisions 2/2/2000 1998 Sections 509 and 603. Air Permit Procedure and ERC Banking Revisions 1/27/2003 1999-2001 Sections 509, 613, and 615.
  • Sections 613 and 615 were approved by EPA into the SIP on 09/27/2002 (67 FR 60877).
  • Baton Rouge Severe Area Rule Update 6/15/2005 4/20/2004 Section 504. Air Permit Procedure Revisions and New Source Review Reform 12/20/2005 12/20/2005 Sections 504 and 509. Air Permit Procedure and ERC Banking Revisions 5/5/2006 2005 Sections 504, 509, and 613. Rescission of Alternative Emission Reduction Plan for Union Carbide Corporation, Taft Plant 7/20/2007 3/12/2007 EPA approved the Union Carbide permit as part of the SIP. See 07/18/1990, 55 FR 29205.
  • On 3/12/07, LDEQ rescinded the permit.
  • Air Permit Procedure and ERC Banking Revisions 11/9/2007 2006 Sections 504, 509, and 607. On 10/15/2014, LDEQ requested that EPA not take action on LAC 33:III.504.M. Therefore, it is not before EPA for action. Air Permit Procedure Revisions 8/14/2009 2007 Sections 504, 603, 605, 607, 613, and 615. Air Permit Procedure Revisions for PM2.5 NAAQS 5/16/2011 2011 Sections 504 and 509. LA SIP Update, PM2.5 Increments 2/27/2013 12/20/2012 Section 509.
    II. Evaluation A. Revisions to the NNSR and PSD Programs Air Permit Procedures

    We evaluated and are proposing to approve the Chapter 5 amendments contained in the July 25, 1997, June 22, 1998, February 2, 2000, January 27, 2003, June 15, 2005, May 5, 2006, July 20, 2007, November 9, 2007, August 14, 2009, submittals. These amendments, if approved by the EPA, would provide clarity to the SIP-approved rules and correct contradictory language. Specific proposed revisions address the assessment and validation of a facility's emissions inventory values. Further, the amendments would revise the SIP rules to conform to the latest changes to Louisiana laws. The changes also define, for NNSR purposes, the parishes that have been designated as non-attainment for ozone. The EPA's evaluation of the Louisiana SIP submittals include a line-by-line comparison, which can be found in the TSD, of the proposed revisions with the federal requirements. We find that in most cases, the state regulatory language is identical to that of the federal rule. Where the rules are not identical, we find they are consistent with the federal rules and definitions and meet their intent. The EPA is therefore proposing to approve the submitted rules as part of the Louisiana NNSR and PSD SIP.

    B. Revisions to the NNSR and PSD Programs for the NSR Reform Rule

    We evaluated and are proposing to approve the December 20, 2005, as revised through the May 16, 2011 submittal that contains changes to the Louisiana NNSR and PSD permitting programs reflecting the requirements found in the federal NSR Reform Program SIP rules.

    Our evaluation of the Louisiana SIP submittals included a line-by-line comparison, which can be found in the TSD, of the proposed revisions with the federal requirements. State agencies may deviate from the specific definitions of 40 CFR part 51, and the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, only if the States specifically demonstrate that the submitted definitions are more stringent or at least as stringent as the corresponding federal definitions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2).

    The State of Louisiana elected to incorporate by reference (IBR) most of the federal rules but adopted some with differences. As part of its December 20, 2005, submittal, Louisiana provided the EPA with an Equivalency Determination that addresses the differences with the federal rules regarding emissions defined that are associated with startup, shutdown and malfunction emissions. The Secretary of the LDEQ also submitted on June 9, 2015 a letter containing further clarification. In addition, LDEQ provided follow up SIP submittals that are summarized above and discussed in further detail in the Technical Support Document. We find that the LDEQ has adopted the necessary elements of NSR Reform rule for both the NNSR and PSD programs.

    As discussed in I. F., Louisiana's submitted rules do not include the Clean Unit applicability test and Pollution Control Projects vacated by the Court.1 Further, “reasonable possibility” provisions that were promulgated in the EPA's NSR Reform SIP rules were remanded back to EPA for further consideration on June 24, 2005.1

    1 The EPA promulgated the revised provisions on December 21, 2007 at 72 FR 72607.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (New York) ordered the EPA either to provide an acceptable explanation for its “reasonable possibility” standard or to devise an appropriately supported alternative. The Court held, “[b]ecause EPA has failed to explain how it can ensure NSR compliance without the relevant data, we will remand for it either to provide an acceptable explanation for its “reasonable possibility” standard or to devise an appropriately supportive alternative.” Initially, in promulgating the “reasonable possibility” standard, we intended to limit recordkeeping requirements to those projects for which variability in calculating emissions creates an interest in obtaining additional information in order to confirm that the appropriate applicability outcome is reached.

    To satisfy the Court's remand, the EPA has clarified what constitutes “reasonable possibility” and when the “reasonable possibility” recordkeeping requirements apply. We adopted a bright-line test at 50 percent that will capture projects that have a higher probability of variability and/or error in projected emissions. Projects with projected increases below the 50-percent threshold, especially when emissions from demand growth are included in projections, are, we believe, sufficiently small that any variability or error in calculations is less likely to be large enough for the change to have increased emissions to the significant level. This requirement is based on authority in circumstances such as these that allows agencies to establish a bright-line test, as opposed to making case-by-case determinations. See, e.g., Time Warner Entertainment Co. L.P. v. F.C.C., 240 F.3d 1126, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

    We also state “[s]ome State or local authorities may be able to adopt these changes through a change in interpretation of the term “reasonable possibility” without the need to revise the SIP. For any State or local authority that can implement the changes without revising its approved SIP, the changes will become effective when the reviewing authority publicly announces that it accepts these changes by interpretation. In the case of NSR SIP revisions that include the term “reasonable possibility” but that we have not yet approved, we will approve the SIP revision if the State or local authority commits to implementing the “reasonable possibility” standard in a manner consistent with our final rule.”

    The EPA Region 6 requested in a letter of January 24, 2008, that LDEQ submit a commitment to implement the “reasonable possibility provisions in Sections 504.D.9 and 509.R.6 in a manner consistent with EPA's revised rules. On October 6, 2008, LDEQ committed to implement the provisions in a manner consistent with the EPA's “Reasonable Possibility in Recordkeeping” rule.

    In addition, on February 22, 2013, the EPA identified seven Louisiana SIP-approved citations that could allow emissions that were either automatically or through director's discretion, exempted from compliance with otherwise applicable emission limitations. State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; Proposed Rule, (78 FR 12522, February 22, 2013). On May 22, 2015, the EPA issued a final action requiring Louisiana to ensure it has a plan in place that is fully consistent with the CAA and recent court decisions regarding startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) for the named Louisiana rule citations.

    In this proposal action, we are addressing the eight rule changes for baseline actual emissions and projected actual emissions definitions. These submitted definitions include the phrase “authorized emissions associated with startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM).” Because the term “authorized emissions” as used could encompass the exempted emissions subject to the SSM SIP Call if Louisiana fails to appropriately respond to the SSM SIP Call within 18 months from the issuance of the final action, the EPA will have to revisit its approval of these revisions. In the interim, the LDEQ sent us a letter on June 9, 2015, that clarifies the definition of authorized emissions and also clarifies LDEQ's use of variances and emergency orders for permitted sources which temporarily allow emissions greater than those provided under a specific permit condition or temporarily replace an emissions unit that cannot operate without being in violation of an underlying permit condition or would be a danger to operate. See discussion in the following Section II.C. below.

    We are proposing to approve the December 20, 2005, submittal, as revised by the May 16, 2011, submittal as part of the Louisiana SIP for Major NSR reform.

    C. LDEQ's Clarification Letter

    LDEQ provided a clarification letter (Clarification) on June 9, 2015, which was requested by the EPA to clarify perceived inconsistencies in certain provisions in the SIP submission. The full text of the letter can be found in the Docket for this action. This letter clarifies the following aspects of the Major NSR Air Permit Program.

    The EPA asked for clarification on how the state provisions utilize the term “authorized” in the context of emissions associated with start-ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions, a term not found in the federal rules. We also asked for clarification on how variances and emergency orders affect permit actions.

    LDEQ explained in its clarification letter that the term “authorized” does not expand the meaning of “baseline actual emissions” or “projected actual emissions” in a manner to render the submitted revisions to LAC 33:III.504 and 509 less stringent than their corresponding federal provisions. Accordingly, a permittee cannot circumvent what would otherwise be applicable NSR requirements when issuing either a new or modified (i.e., a physical change or change in the method of operation) permit that is subject to PSD review or improperly establishes a plantwide applicability limit by means of an LDEQ-issued variance or Emergency Order. In the context of LAC 33:III.504 and 509, the term “authorized emissions” refers to emissions authorized through only a valid air permit issued pursuant to LAC 33:III.Chapter 5. LDEQ emphasized that should it calculate baseline actual emissions using its definition in LAC 33:III.504.K or 509.B, the result would be no different than if the federal definition at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxv) or 51.166(b)(47) was utilized.

    Next, LDEQ responded that a variance is not a permit, but rather a waiver issued prospectively by LDEQ to allow emissions from an emissions unit to temporarily exceed permitted limitations or to authorize the use of a temporary emissions unit not addressed by an air permit. Baseline actual emissions cannot exceed permitted limits, even if additional emissions have been approved by means of a variance or Declaration of Emergency and Administrative Order.

    In addition, LDEQ expanded on its use of the term “authorized” in relation to its context of LAC 33:III.919 (Emissions Inventory) and the reporting of actual emissions to LDEQ's Emissions Reporting and Inventory Center. LDEQ stated it would amend its “Louisiana Guidance for Air Permitting Actions” to clarify that, for purposes of baseline actual emissions and projected actual emissions, “authorized” emissions cannot exceed the limitations imposed by an air permit issued pursuant to LAC 33:III.Chapter 5.

    D. Revisions to the NNSR and PSD Programs for PM2.5 Implementation

    We evaluated and are proposing to approve the revisions to the Louisiana PSD and NNSR programs submitted on May 16, 2011, and to the PSD program submitted on February 27, 2013, finding that the Louisiana NNSR and PSD permitting programs comply with the federal regulatory requirements for implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS as required through the May 16, 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule and the October 20, 2010 PM2.5 PSD SILs—SMC and Increments Rule. See 73 FR 28321 and 75 FR 64864.

    E. Emission Reduction Credits (ERC) Banking Revisions

    We evaluated and are proposing to approve revisions to the existing SIP-approved Louisiana Regulations on Control of Emissions through the Use of ERC Banking. The submittals containing Chapter 6 rules that are a part of this action are dated February 2, 2000, January 27, 2003, May 5, 2006, November 9, 2007, and August 14, 2009, found that the Louisiana ERC banking revisions comply with the federal regulatory requirements for implementation of the control of emissions through the use of ERC Banking. The changes include: (1) Establishing emission banking for all parishes designated as ozone nonattainment areas in the state; (2) revising submittal dates for banking credits; (3) revising references after department reorganization to reflect new organization structure; and (4) replacing the 1-hour ozone standard with the 8-hour standard. Our evaluation of the Louisiana SIP submittal included a line-by-line comparison, which is provided in the TSD, of the proposed revisions with the federal requirements. Most of the changes contained in the Chapter 6 submittals were not substantial. Our analysis shows that in most cases, the state regulatory language is identical to the federal rule. Where the rules are not identical, they are consistent with and support the intent of the federal rules and definitions. The EPA is therefore proposing to approve these submittals. Note that the revisions we are addressing update the existing SIP-approved requirements to address current nonattainment areas. These revisions do not change the underlying purpose of the emissions bank, which is to provide nonattainment offsets.

    F. Does the proposed approval of the Louisiana Air Permit Procedure Revisions or ERC Banking Revisions interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act?

    We have determined that the regulations submitted to EPA for approval as SIP revisions meet the requirements of section 110(l). We have determined that their implementation will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The EPA's evaluation of the Louisiana SIP submittals included a line-by-line comparison, which can be found in section VI of the TSD, of the proposed revisions with the federal requirements. If the rules are new, including the NSR Reform rules contained in the December 20, 2005 submittal, then they were determined to be consistent with the federal SIP rules. Therefore, as discussed above and in the TSD, the revisions to the Louisiana NNSR and PSD programs are substantively the same as the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, without including any vacated provisions, we conclude that these rules do not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act. See 67 FR 80186 and 68 FR 63021 for EPA's detailed explanation of the legal basis for the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. The EPA has concluded that the regulatory submittals, as ultimately revised, meet the requirements of the CAA section 110(l).

    Additionally, the rescission of the Bubble for Union Carbide Corporation Taft Plant also meets CAA section 110(l). On July 18, 1990, the EPA approved the Bubble, as a revision to the Louisiana SIP (55 FR 29203). The original SIP revision was based on an Alternative Emission Reduction Plan as requested by the Governor of Louisiana on October 19, 1983, for St. Charles Parish due to the area being located in a nonattainment area for ozone. The permit was incorporated by reference into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.970(d). The submittal incorrectly identified the regulation citation as 40 CFR 52.970(c)(55)(i)(a). The rescission was a result of changed circumstances regarding the two tanks (Tanks 2635 and 2102) originally regulated by the Bubble permit 1836T. Tank 2635 is no longer in service and the regulation of Tank 2102 was moved to Logistics Title Permit No. 2656-V0 which is subject to Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) emission control requirements, resulting in significantly lower VOC emission. The annual emission limit of 0.51 tons per year of VOC, is roughly a 95% decrease in the VOC emission limit from the 1983 permit of 9.5 tpy. The emission reductions gained through the use of RACT and requiring compliance with an annual emission limit for Tank 2102 negate the need for use of emission reductions identified in 55 FR 29203, from the shutdown of Glyoxal Reactor Column vent and the storage of compounds with a lower vapor pressure in 5 tanks (2201 (removed from service), and the other four tanks, 2202, 2212, 2206, and 2315) as identified, which provided credits to allow Tanks 2102 and 2635 to obtain exemptions. All of the tanks in service are now regulated under Logistics Title Permit No. 2656-V0). Therefore, less emissions vented to the atmosphere ensure attainment and reasonable progress.

    III. Proposed Action

    In this action, the EPA proposes to approve severable revisions to the major air permitting procedures in sections 501, 504, 509, 523, 603, 605, 607, 613, and 615 as submitted to the EPA to revise the Louisiana Major NSR SIP Permit program on July 25, 1997, June 22, 1998, February 2, 2000, January 27, 2003, June 15, 2005, December 20, 2005, May 5, 2006, July 20, 2007, November 9, 2007, August 14, 2009, May 16, 2011, and February 27, 2013. In addition, the EPA is proposing to remove the alternative emission reduction plan (“Bubble”) for Union Carbide Corporation, Taft Plant to reflect LDEQ's rescission of the permit, from the SIP. Table 2 in Section III summarizes each regulatory citation that is affected by this action. Note, Table 2 does not include the rescission of the Union Carbide bubble, submitted on July 20, 2007, which is also being proposed for approval. We have made the preliminary determination that the revisions were developed and submitted in accordance with the requirements of the CAA and the EPA's regulations regarding SIP development at 40 CFR part 51. Additionally, we have determined that the submitted revisions to the Louisiana PSD and NNSR programs, as clarified by LDEQ, are consistent with our major source permitting regulations at 40 CFR 51.160-51.166 and the associated policy and guidance. Therefore, under section 110 and parts C and D of the Act, and for the reasons presented above and in our accompanying TSD, the EPA proposes to fully approve the specific revisions to the Louisiana SIP identified in Table 2 below:

    Table 2—Summary of Each Regulation That Is Affected by This Action Section Date submitted
  • to EPA as
  • SIP amendment
  • Affected regulation
    Section 501—Scope and Applicability Section 501 7/25/1997 Section 501—Authority. Section 504—Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Procedures and Offset Requirements in Specified Parishes Section 504.A 6/15/2005 Section 504.A.6. 12/20/2005 Sections 504.A., 504.A.1., 504.A.3., 504.A.3.a.-d., 504.A.4, 504.A.5., 504.A.5.a.-b., 504.A.6., 504.A.6.a.-f., 504.A.7., 504.A.7.a.-c., 504.A.8. 11/9/2007 Sections 504.A.1., 504.A.2., 504.A.3., 504.A.4, 504.A.8. Section 504.C 5/5/2006 Section 504.C., Section 504.F.7., Section 504.F.7.a—Table 1, PM10. 8/14/2009 Section 504.C. Section 504.D 6/15/2005 Section 504.D.3. 12/20/2005 Sections 504.D.4., 504.D.9, 504.D.9.a.-e., 504.D.10., 504D.11., 504.D.11.a-b. 11/9/2007 Sections 504.D.5 Section 504.F 12/20/2005 Sections 504.F.11., and 504.F.12. 5/5/2006 Section 504.F.7, 504.F.7.a.—Table 1, Footnote PM10. 11/09/2007 Sections 504.F.1., 504.F.8.a.-c., 504.F.9.L Table 1. 8/14/2009 Section 504.F.7. 5/16/2011 Section 504.F.1. Section 504.G 12/20/2005 Sections 504.G., 504.G.1., 504.G.2., 504.G.2.a.-e., 504.G.3., 504.G.3.a.-c., 504.G.4., 504.G.4.a.-b., 504.G.5., 504.G.5.a.-b., 504.G.6., 504.G.6.a.-f., 504.G.7., 504.G.7.a.-c., 504.G.8., 504.G.9. Section 504.H 12/20/2005 Sections 504.H.1., 504.H.2., 504.H.2.a.-d., 504.H.3., 504.H.3.a.-d., 504.H.4., 504.H.4.a.-c., 504.H.5., 504.H.6., 504.H.7., 504.H.8., 504.H.8.a.-f., 504.H.9., 504.H.9.a.-e., 504.H.10., 504.H.11. Section 504.I 12/20/2005 Sections 504.I.1., 504.I.2., 504.I.2.a.-b., 504.I.3., 504.I.3.a.-e., 504.I.4., 504.I.5., 504.I.6., 504.I.6.a.-d. Section 504.J 12/20/2005 Sections 504.J.1., 504.J.1.a.-d., 504.J.2., 504.J.2.a.-k., 504.J.3., 504.J.3.a.-c., 504.J.4., 504.J.4.a.-b., 504.J.5., 504.J.6., 504.J.6.a.-b., 504.J.7., 504.J.7.a.-j., 504.J.8., 504.J.8.a.-b., 504.J.9., 504.J.9.a.-e., 504.J.10., 504.J.10.a.-e., 504.J.11., 504.J.11.a.-c., 504.J.12., 504.J.12.a.-i., 504.J.13., 504.J.13.a.-b., 504.J.14., 504.J.14.a.-c., 504.J.15., 504.J.15.a.-b. 5/16/2011 Section 504.J.5. Section 504.K 12/20/2005 Sections 504.K. Definitions. Beginning with Act—repealed, Administrator, Adverse Impact on Visibility, Allowable Emissions, Baseline Actual Emissions, Begin Actual Construction, Best Available Control Technology, Clean Air Act, Clean Coal Technology, Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project, Clean Unit, Commence, Construction, Continuous Emissions Monitoring System, Continuous Emissions Rate Monitoring System, Continuous Parameter Monitoring System, Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit, Emissions Unit, Federal Class I Area, Federal Land Manager, Federally Enforceable, Fugitive Emissions, Lowest Achievable Emission Rate, Major Modification, Major Stationary Source, Mandatory Federal Class I Area, Natural Conditions, Necessary Preconstruction Approvals, or Permits, and Net Emissions Increase. 5/16/2011 Section 504.K. Definition. Malfunction—repealed, Regulated Pollutant, Significant. Section 504.L 11/09/2007 Section 504.L Table 1 and footnotes. 5/16/2011 Section 504 L Table 1 and footnotes for Major Stationary Source. Section 504.M 11/09/2007 Sections 504.M. and 504.M.1.-3. EPA is not taking action on this section based on LDEQ 10/15/2014, request for EPA to “not take action”. Section 509—Prevention of Significant Deterioration Section 509.A 12/20/2005 Sections 509.A.1., 509.A.2., 509.A.3., 509.A.4., 509.A.4.a-f., 509.A.5., 509.A.6. 5/5/2006 Section 509.A.3. 11/09/2007 Section 509.A.4.f. 5/16/2011 Reference to previously SIP approved submittal PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 509.B 7/25/1997 Section 509.B. Definitions. Baseline Area.2. 6/22/1998 Section 509.B. Definitions. Reconstruction. 1/27/2003 Section 509.B.2. 12/20/2005 Sections 509.B. Definitions. Actual Emissions, Adverse Impact on Visibility, Allowable Emissions, Baseline Area, Baseline Concentration, Baseline Date, Begin Actual Construction, Best Available Control Technology, Building, Structure, Facility or Installation, Clean Air Act, Clean Coal Technology, Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project, Clean Unit, Commence, Complete, Construction, Continuous Emissions Monitoring System, Continuous Emissions Rate Monitoring System, Continuous Parameter Monitoring System, Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit, Emissions Unit, Federal Land Manager, Federally Enforceable, Fugitive Emissions High Terrain, Indian Governing Body, Indian Reservation Innovative Control Technology, Low Terrain, Lowest Achievable Emission Rate, Major Modification, Major Stationary Source, Necessary Preconstruction Approvals, Pollution Control Project, Pollution Prevention, Potential to Emit, Predictive Emissions Monitoring System, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Project, Reactivation of a Very Clean Coal-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Unit, Reasonably Available Control Technology, Regulated NSR Pollutant, Replacement Unit, Repowering, Reviewing Authority, Significant, Significant Emissions Increase Stationary Source, and Temporary Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project. 11/9/2007 Sections 509.B. definitions Major Modification, Major Stationary Source, Regulated NSR Pollutant, and Significant. 5/16/2011 Section 509.B. Definitions—Malfunctions—repeal, Regulated New Source Review (NSR) Pollutant, Significant a. 2/27/2013 Section 509.B. Definitions. Baseline Area, Baseline Date, Minor Source Baseline Date. Section 509.C 12/20/2005 Sections 509.C. 2/27/2013 Sections 509.C. Ambient Air Increments. Section 509.D 6/22/1998 Section 509.D.17. 12/20/2005 Sections 509.D., 509.D.1.-2. Section 509.E 12/20/2005 Sections 509.E., 509.E.1.-4. Section 509.G 12/20/2005 Sections 509.G., 509.G.1.-4. Section 509.H 12/20/2005 Sections 509.H., 509.H.1.-2. Section 509.I. 12/20/2005 Sections 509.I., 509.I.1.-9. 11/9/2007 Sections 509.I.5.a., approving renumbering only because substantively it has already been addressed. 2/27/2013 Sections 509.I.5., 509.I.5.a., 509.I.8., 509.I.9., 509.I.9.b. Section 509.J 12/20/2005 Sections 509.J., 509.J.1.-4. 2/27/2013 Sections 509.J., 509.J.5., 509.J.5.a., Section 509.K 12/20/2005 Sections 509.K., 509.K.1.-2. 2/27/2013 Sections 509.K., 509.K.1., 509.K.1.a.-b. Section 509.L 12/20/2005 Sections 509.L., 509.L.1.-2. Section 509.M 12/20/2005 Sections 509.M., 509.M.1-3. Section 509.N 12/20/2005 Sections 509.N., 509.N.1.-2. Section 509.O 12/20/2005 Sections 509.O.1.-3. 5/5/2006 Section 509.O.3. Section 509.P 12/20/2005 Sections 509.P, 509.P. 1.-8. 2/27/2013 Section 509.P.5. Section 509.Q 2/2/2000 Sections 509.Q.7., 509.Q.8.b. 12/20/2005 Sections 509.Q., 509.Q.1.-2. Section 509.R 12/20/2005 Sections 509.R., 509.R.1.-7. Section 509.V 12/20/2005 Sections 509.V., 509.V.1.-4. Section 509.W 12/20/2005 Sections 509.W., 509.W.1.-4. Section 509.X 12/20/2005 Sections 509.X., 509.X.1.-9. Section 509.Y 12/20/2005 Sections 509.Y., 509.Y.1.-11. Section 509.Z 12/20/2005 Sections 509.Z., 509.Z.1.-6. Section 509.AA 12/20/2005 Sections 509.AA., 509.AA.1.-15. Section 603—Applicability Section 603 2/2/2000 Section 603, no longer in front of EPA—superseded. Section 603.A 8/14/2009 Section 603.A. Section 605 Section 605.A 8/14/2009 Section 605.A. Definitions Offset. Section 607—Determination of Creditable Emission Reductions Section 607.C 11/9/2007 Sections 607.C.1, 607.C.4.a.i, and 607.C.4.a.ii. 8/14/2009 Section 607.C.4.b Section 613—ERC Balance Sheet Section 613.B 5/5/2006 Section 613.B. Section 613.B 5/5/2006 Section 613.B. (repealed). Section 613.D 1/27/2003 Section 613.D. Section 615—Schedule for Submitting Applications Section 615.B 1/27/2003 Section 615.B. Section 615.C 8/14/2009 Sections 615.C., and 615.D.

    We also are proposing to approve the December 25, 2005, submittal, as revised by the May 16, 2011, submittal. as part of the Louisiana NSR SIP because they meet the Major NSR reform requirements. The LDEQ also provided an October 6, 2008, letter, and a June 9, 2015, providing further clarification.

    The EPA is proposing to find that the May 16, 2011, revisions to the Louisiana NNSR program at LAC 33:III.504 address all required NNSR elements for the implementation of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We note that the Louisiana NNSR program does not include regulation of VOCs and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors. However, as section 189(e) of the Act requires regulation of PM2.5 precursors that significantly contribute to PM2.5 levels “which exceed the standard in the area” and Louisiana does not have a designated PM2.5 nonattainment area; the revisions addressing only SO2 and NOX are not inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA. In the event that an area is designated nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS or any other future PM2.5 NAAQS, Louisiana will have a deadline under section 189(a)(2) of the CAA to make a submission addressing the statutory requirements as to that area, including the requirements in section 189(e) that apply to the regulation of PM2.5 precursors.

    The EPA invites the public to make comments on all aspects of our proposed full approval of the Louisiana Air Permit Procedure Program, and to submit them by the Date listed above. We are accepting comments on this proposed action for 30 days. After reviewing the comments received, we will make a final determination of the approvability of the specified revisions to the Louisiana Major Air Permit Procedures and Regulations and Control of Emissions through the Use of Emission Reduction Credits (ERC) Banking Revisions in the Federal Register.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to the Louisiana regulations as described in the Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 5, 2015. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20504 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0205; FRL-9931-37-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; El Paso Particulate Matter Contingency Measures AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Texas. These revisions pertain to contingency measures for particulate matter in the City of El Paso. The affected contingency measures are the paving of alleys and sweeping of streets.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before September 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0205, by one of the following methods:

    www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions.

    Email: Jeffrey Riley at [email protected]

    Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0205. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which 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 that the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment along with any disk or CD-ROM submitted. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses. 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:

    Jeffrey Riley, 214-665-8542, [email protected] To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Mr. Riley or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document wherever “we”, “us”, or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

    I. Background A. El Paso PM10 History

    Under the 1990 CAA Amendments, the City of El Paso, Texas was designated by operation of law as nonattainment of the 1987 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM) with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers (PM10) and classified as a moderate nonattainment area. The EPA approved on January 18, 1994 at 59 FR 02532, the El Paso PM10 Attainment Demonstration SIP revision. The SIP included, among other things, PM control measures and a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of El Paso and the State of Texas (MOU). The EPA approved three types of PM control measures as contingency measures because they went beyond reasonably available control measures and were not relied upon to show attainment or reasonable further progress (RFP). The three types of PM control measures approved as contingency measures were prescribed burning, residential burning, and fugitive dust control measures. The fugitive dust measures include not only controls for roads, streets, alleys, parking lots, construction and demolition sites, and materials handling, but also a requirement that existing unpaved alleys be paved at a rate of 15 miles per year and mechanical sweepers remove soil from roads four times per year in the city limits and six times per week in the central business district. The SIP MOU between the City of El Paso and the State of Texas outlines the responsibilities and regulatory requirements for both parties in implementing the dust control methods.

    B. Texas' Submittals

    On March 7, 2012, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) submitted revisions to remove the requirement to pave alleys at the rate of 15 miles per year, and replace it with the following requirements: (1) All new alleys must be paved; (2) unpaved alleys cannot be used for residential garbage and recycling collection; and (3) recycled asphalt product (RAP) may be used as an alternate means of control for unpaved alleys. The revisions also changed the street sweeping frequency requirement from four times per year to three times per year in the city limits and from six times per week to four times per week in the central business district. TCEQ provided supplemental information dated December 3, 2014 updating the unpaved alleys inventory between 2010 through 2014.

    II. The EPA's Evaluation

    Section 110(l) of the CAA states that the EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Contingency Measures are a required element of an attainment demonstration, to be implemented if the area fails to attain. In this case, the City implemented early the contingency measures for paving of alleys and street sweeping on an on-going basis since 1991, even though not required by the EPA. Implementation of these measures has continued even after the 1994 attainment date. To demonstrate noninterference, Texas provided a qualitative analysis of the emission reductions achieved by these measures coupled with evaluation of air quality data to show that the level of emissions provided for by the revised early implemented contingency measures would not interfere with attainment or RFP.

    At the time of the EPA's approval of the paving of alleys as a contingency measure, there were an estimated 89 miles of unpaved alleys, and all unpaved roads in the city of El Paso were required to be paved in order to reduce this source category's projected 1994 PM10 emissions by 0.5 percent. The State documents that the inventory of unpaved alleys in El Paso has decreased from 66% of total alley miles in 1991, to 16% of total alley miles in 2010, with approximately 23 miles of unpaved alleys remaining. The supplemental information provided to the EPA shows that between 2010 through 2014, the percentage of unpaved alleys has continued to decrease to 13% of the total inventory, with approximately 17 miles of unpaved alleys remaining. A total of 72 alley miles have been paved, the estimated emissions reductions for 1994 were met in 1994, and emissions reductions continued after that date. In the SIP submittal, the City commits to continue paving alleys. The additional compliance option of using RAP as a paving material helps ensure continued reduction of the inventory of uncontrolled alleys. The EPA agrees that RAP can be effective in suppressing dust.

    The overall inventory of unpaved alleys in El Paso has continued to decrease, and thereby further reductions in PM10 levels have occurred well beyond the decrease in inventory of unpaved alleys approved as the contingency measures. Furthermore, there will be no increase in unpaved alleys because the SIP revision requires that all new alleys be paved. As a practical matter, the EPA recognizes that a rate of 15 miles of paving per year could not be maintained unless the City were to create unpaved alleys in order to pave them.

    As additional support for the change to the rate of paving of alleys, the submitted revision prohibits garbage collection in unpaved alleys; the City since 1997 stopped garbage collection in paved and unpaved alleys. The significant paving progress, the requirement to pave new alleys, and prohibition of garbage collection in alleys have reduced the overall amount of fugitive dust in the El Paso area. In the SIP submittal, the City commits to continue sweeping on a different schedule. Because the emissions reductions from paving and street sweeping are from already-implemented contingency measures, thus above what was needed to show attainment, and the reductions continue, the PM reductions from these measures are above and beyond what is required to show continued maintenance of the NAAQS.

    The State's submittal also relied upon ambient monitoring data for the years 2007 through 2009 to demonstrate there will be no interference with attainment. The El Paso area continues to monitor attainment of the PM10 NAAQS based on data for all three years from 2011 through 2013. See the TSD for additional information on the monitoring data.

    Because the fugitive dust controls are early implemented contingency measures, they were not relied upon for demonstrating attainment or RFP; paving of new alleys is required; the inventory of pre-existing unpaved alleys has been reduced from 66% of total alleys to 13%; and paving continues using the effective RAP, the EPA finds that the SIP revision will not interfere with the area's ability to continue to attain or maintain the affected NAAQS or other CAA requirements.

    III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve revisions to the Texas SIP that pertain to changes to the PM10 contingency measures in the City of El Paso. The State's revisions submitted on March 7, 2012 amend rule 30 TAC § 111.147(1)(E) by removing the requirement to pave alleys at the rate of 15 miles/year, and replace it with the following requirements:

    (1) All new alleys must be paved;

    (2) Alleys may not be used for trash pickup; and

    (3) The use of recycled asphalt product as defined in § 111.145 and § 111.147(1) may be used as an alternate means of particulate matter control for alleys.

    We also are proposing to approve 30 TAC § 111.145 and § 111.147(1) that define RAP, and 30 TAC § 111.147(2) that changes the sweeping frequency requirement from four to three time per year in the city limits and from six to four times per week in the El Paso central business district. We have evaluated the State's submittals and have determined that they meet the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations, and are consistent with EPA policy.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to the Texas regulations as described in the Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 5, 2015. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20499 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 56 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0616; FRL-9929-98-OAR] RIN 2060-AS53 Amendments to Regional Consistency Regulations AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise its Regional Consistency regulations to ensure the EPA has the flexibility necessary to implement Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) programs on a national scale while addressing court rulings that concern certain agency actions under the Act. In addition, the proposed revisions would help to foster overall fairness and predictability regarding the scope and impact of judicial decisions under the CAA.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 19, 2015.

    Public hearing. If requested by September 3, 2015, then we will hold a public hearing. Additional information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a subsequent Federal Register document.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0616, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. If you need to include CBI as part of your comment, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html for instructions. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information, contact Greg Nizich, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C504-03), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-3078; fax number (919) 541-5509; email address: [email protected]

    To request a public hearing or information pertaining to a public hearing on this document, contact Ms. Pamela Long, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C504-01), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-0641; fax number (919) 541-5509; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Regulated entities. The Administrator determined that this action is subject to the provisions of CAA section 307(d). See CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of CAA section 307(d) apply to “such other actions as the Administrator may determine). These are amendments to existing regulations and could affect your facility if it is the subject of a CAA-related ruling by a federal court.

    The information in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble is organized as follows:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA? C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? D. How can I find information about a possible public hearing? E. What acronyms, abbreviations and units are used in this preamble? II. Purpose III. Background A. Purpose of the Regional Consistency Regulations B. Establishing the Regional Consistency Regulations C. Reasons for Revising the Regional Consistency Regulations IV. Proposed Revisions to the Regional Consistency Rule A. What are the proposed revisions to the 40 CFR part 56 Regional Consistency Regulations? B. What is the basis for the EPA's approach? V. Environmental Justice Considerations VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Determination Under Section 307(d) VII. Statutory Authority I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected directly by this proposal include the EPA and other governments that are delegated administrative authority to assist the EPA with the implementation of air program federal regulations. Entities potentially affected indirectly by this proposal include owners and operators of sources of air emissions that are subject to CAA regulations.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA? 1. Submitting CBI

    Do not submit this information to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Tiffany Purifoy, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0616.

    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    When submitting comments, remember to:

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

    • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed rule will also be available on the World Wide Web. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this proposed rule will be posted in the regulations and standards section of our New Source Review (NSR) Web site, under Regulations & Standards, at http://www.epa.gov/nsr.

    D. How can I find information about a possible public hearing?

    To request a public hearing or information pertaining to a public hearing on this document, contact Ms. Pamela Long, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C504-03), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-0641; fax number (919) 541-5509; email address: [email protected]

    E. What acronyms, abbreviations and units are used in this preamble?

    The following acronyms, abbreviations and units are used in this preamble:

    CAA or Act Clean Air Act EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FIP Federal Implementation Plan ICR Information Collection Request NSR New Source Review NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OMB Office of Management and Budget PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act SBA Small Business Administration SIP State Implementation Plan UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act II. Purpose

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to revise the EPA's Regional Consistency regulations—40 CFR part 56. Specifically, we are proposing to add a provision to the Regional Consistency regulations to accommodate the implications of federal court decisions that result from challenges to locally or regionally applicable actions. As explained more fully below, revising the Regional Consistency regulations to accommodate the implications of such federal court decisions is consistent with general principles of common law, the judicial review provisions of the CAA, and CAA section 301(a)(2). Furthermore, the proposed revisions will help to foster overall fairness and predictability regarding the scope and impact of judicial decisions under the CAA.

    III. Background A. Purpose of the Regional Consistency Regulations

    The CAA calls for the EPA to implement the Act in partnership with state, local and tribal governments. See Mountain States Legal Found. v. Costle, 630 F.2d 754, 757 (10th Cir. 1980). While the roles of that partnership vary depending on the nature of the air pollution problem, generally the EPA issues national standards or federal requirements to address air pollution, and state, local and tribal air agencies (hereinafter referred to simply as “air agencies”) assume primary responsibility for implementing those standards and requirements. For example, the Act requires the EPA to establish, review and revise national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for certain common air pollutants. The Act then assigns air agencies responsibility for developing enforceable state implementation plans (SIPs) to meet those standards. The EPA is required to review each SIP to determine if it meets all of the applicable requirements of the CAA. If the SIP is approved, the air agency will implement the SIP in order to provide for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in areas under its jurisdiction. The EPA will provide technical and policy assistance to the air agency and also maintain an oversight role to ensure that the program is adequately implemented and enforced. If the EPA finds that an air agency has failed to submit a required SIP, or that an air agency's SIP is incomplete, or if the EPA disapproves a SIP in whole or in part, the CAA requires that the EPA promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) to provide for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in the corresponding area. The Act also requires preconstruction permits for major new and modified stationary sources of air pollution. In most areas, air agencies serve as the CAA permitting authority under an approved SIP; some air agencies implement the federal program under a delegation agreement; elsewhere, the EPA is the permitting authority under a FIP.

    How the EPA carries out its role in this cooperative partnership under the CAA is influenced by how the EPA is organized. The EPA is composed of various headquarters offices, each of which is responsible for nationwide execution of our programs, and ten regional offices, each of which is responsible for the execution of our programs within several states and territories. See 40 CFR part 1, subparts A and C (for more information, see the EPA Organizational Chart located at http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-organization-chart). In carrying out responsibilities under the CAA, the EPA Administrator relies on input from various offices in headquarters, especially those within the Office of Air and Radiation, and in the regional offices. In fact, the CAA provides the EPA Administrator with the authority to delegate powers and duties necessary to carry out the Act to EPA officials in both the headquarters and regional offices (CAA section 301(a)(1)). Returning to the NAAQS example, headquarters offices take the lead in promulgating the NAAQS, while regional offices are primarily responsible for working directly with air agencies to assist them in their SIP submissions and approval or disapproval of such SIPs. In certain circumstances, headquarters and regional offices consult in developing a proposed and/or final decision regarding approval or disapproval of the SIP.

    B. Establishing the Regional Consistency Regulations

    In the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress added section 301(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 7601) in recognition of the role that staff from both headquarters and regions played in carrying out the Act's programs. CAA section 301(a)(2) required the EPA Administrator to promulgate regulations “establishing general applicable procedures and policies” for the EPA regional officers and employees to follow when carrying out activities delegated to them under the Act. Among other things, the CAA stated that these regulations should “assure fairness and uniformity in the criteria, procedures, and policies applied” by the EPA regional offices in their CAA activities and “provide a mechanism” to identify and standardize any inconsistent or varying criteria, procedures, and policies used by the EPA employees.

    Thereafter, the EPA took a number of actions to promulgate the Regional Consistency regulations required in CAA section 301(a)(2). In 1978, the EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on a number of consistency issues and inviting interested persons to participate in a series of public workshops to discuss the development of the Regional Consistency regulations (43 FR 4872). In 1979, after receiving those comments and listening to input provided at the public workshops from representatives of industry, state, and public interest groups, the EPA issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Regional Consistency regulations (44 FR 13043). Finally, in 1980, the EPA promulgated its final Regional Consistency regulations in 40 CFR part 56.

    As the EPA explained when it finalized the regulations, the “intended effect” of these regulations was “to assure fair and consistent application of rules, regulations and policy throughout the country by assuring that the action of each individual EPA Regional Office is consistent with one another and national policy” (45 FR 85400). Generally, the Regional Consistency regulations: (1) State the EPA policy of assuring “fair and uniform” application of the EPA rules, procedures, and policies necessary to implement and enforce the Act (see 56 CFR 56.3); (2) provide mechanisms for such application by headquarters and regional office employees (see 56 CFR 56.4 and 56.5, respectively); (3) require various headquarters offices to establish systems to disseminate policy and guidance relating to air programs (see 56 CFR 56.6); and (4) utilize the existing grants program for yearly evaluations of state performance in implementing and enforcing the Act (see 56 CFR 56.7).

    The EPA has been acting under these regulations for more than 30 years to address consistency issues regarding various CAA programs, policy, and guidance. In this document, we are proposing to revise the rules to address a very specific consistency issue—how to treat Federal court decisions regarding locally or regionally applicable actions that may affect consistent application of national programs, policy, and guidance.

    C. Reasons for Revising the Regional Consistency Regulations

    The EPA is undertaking this proposed revision to the Regional Consistency regulations, in part, as a result of a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) in National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project v. EPA, No. 13-1035 (D.C. Cir., May 30, 2014). That litigation involved a December 2012 memorandum from EPA headquarters to the EPA regions regarding the limited scope of a court decision issued by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals addressing the EPA's interpretation of national permitting regulations as applied to a specific, local permitting decision.1 See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director of the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, titled Applicability of the Summit Decision to the EPA Title V and NSR Source Determinations (December 21, 2012; available at http://www.epa.gov/region7/air/title5/t5memos/inter2012.pdf) (hereinafter, “December 2012 memorandum”). The December 2012 memorandum reflected the EPA application of a widely recognized legal doctrine referred to as intercircuit nonaquiescence, a practice in which a decision by a federal circuit court is binding only in those areas (in this case, specific states and the associated EPA regions) subject to the direct jurisdiction of the ruling circuit court. Intercircuit nonaquiescence is a practice that the EPA has historically followed with regard to decisions issued by both circuit and district courts and arising in local, non-nationwide actions.2 Therefore, in the December 2012 memorandum, the EPA continued that historic practice and noted that while the agency would follow the Sixth Circuit's decision in those states under the jurisdiction of the Sixth Circuit, the agency's longstanding interpretation of the permitting regulations addressed by the Sixth Circuit decision would continue to apply nationwide outside the Sixth Circuit.

    1 That decision, Summit Petroleum Corp. v. EPA et al., Consolidated Case Nos. 09-4348 and 10-4572 (6th Cir. Aug. 7, 2012), addressed the scope of the term “adjacent” as used in the EPA's source determination regulations in the title V permitting program, which are similar to the source determination regulations used in the new source review and prevention of significant deterioration permitting programs, see 40 CFR 52.21(b)(6) and 71.2. The EPA is currently planning a separate rulemaking to address the term “adjacent” in those permitting regulations, and we direct any commenters wishing to address the Summit decision or those regulations to do so in that separate action. See http://resources.regulations.gov/public/component/main?_dmfClientId=1434045425242&_dmfTzoff=240 for the EPA's Spring 2015 Regulatory Agenda item titled, Source Determination for Certain Emissions Units in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector, RIN 2060-AS06.

    2 While intercircuit nonaquiescence is generally focused on circuit court decisions, the general principle also applies to decisions issued by district courts, which are by their very nature limited in scope, as discussed later in this preamble. For ease of discussion, this preamble will generally use “intercircuit nonaquiescence” to address locally and regionally applicable decisions issued by both circuit and district federal courts.

    On February 19, 2013, the National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project (NEDACAP) filed a petition for review with the D.C. Circuit Court on the December 2012 memorandum. NEDACAP alleged that the December 2012 memorandum violated both CAA section 301(a)(2) and the EPA's Regional Consistency regulations by establishing inconsistent permit criteria in different parts of the country.

    In May 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision vacating the December 2012 memorandum. The D.C. Circuit Court agreed with NEDACAP that the memorandum was inconsistent with the EPA's Regional Consistency regulations located at 40 CFR part 56.3 The court found that the Regional Consistency regulations “strongly articulate the EPA's firm commitment to national uniformity in the applications of its permitting rules” without any indication that “EPA intended to exempt variance created by a judicial decision.” Slip op. at 17. The D.C. Circuit concluded that the EPA's current regulations “preclude EPA's intercircuit nonaquiescence in this instance. . . .” Slip op. at 19.

    3 The D.C. Circuit Court did not reach NEDACAP's argument that the memorandum was also inconsistent with the CAA.

    The D.C. Circuit Court presented three options that the EPA could pursue in response to an adverse decision: Revise the underlying regulation; appeal the decision; or revise the Regional Consistency regulations. By making the revisions proposed in this rulemaking, the EPA is following one of the options suggested by the court. Slip op. at 18.

    First, the court suggested that the EPA consider revising the underlying regulations at issue in the Sixth Circuit decision. Id While this approach may resolve the narrow issue that is the subject of the Sixth Circuit decision, and the EPA is in fact in the process of revising the permitting regulations that were the subject of the Sixth Circuit Court decision and the December 2012 memorandum, this approach generally would require a new rulemaking following each adverse court decision regarding an issue of local applicability. Each national rulemaking of this nature would likely take more than a year—and possibly several years—to complete. By revising the EPA's Regional Consistency regulations to fully allow for intercircuit nonaquiescence, the agency can through one rulemaking save the considerable time and resources potentially required by several narrow rulemakings.

    Second, the court suggested that the EPA could have appealed the Sixth Circuit decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Slip op. at 18. However, because the U.S. Supreme Court grants only about one percent of the petitions for certiorari (i.e., a petition requesting review of a lower court's decision) filed each year, there is a strong likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court would decline to review a lower court's decision.4 Were we to rely solely on this option, absent review by the U.S. Supreme Court, a single federal court decision regarding an action of local applicability could change the EPA's policy nationwide unless and until the EPA undertook a rulemaking (see first option above). As discussed further below, this outcome would be inconsistent with the judicial review provisions of CAA section 307(b)(1).

    4See http://dailywrit.com/2013/01/likelihood-of-a-petition-being-granted/ which cites the following statistics: Petitions granted overall in the 2011-2012 term: .862 percent, and in the 2012-2013 term: 1.03 percent.

    Third, the court suggested that the EPA could revise the Regional Consistency regulations “to account for regional variances created by judicial decisions or circuit splits.” Slip op. at 18. This proposed rulemaking follows this option because we believe it most effectively addresses the issue presented by an adverse federal court decision addressing an action of local or regional applicability. As discussed further below, this proposed revision also would accommodate the EPA's proper and longstanding application of the doctrine of intercircuit nonaquiescence in future cases while eliminating the need for several lengthy, narrow rulemakings or review of a lower court's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    IV. Proposed Revisions to the Regional Consistency Rule

    This section discusses the proposed revisions to the Regional Consistency regulations and our rationale for proposing those changes. We solicit public comment on the changes being proposed and will consider those comments in developing the final rule.

    A. What are the proposed revisions to the 40 CFR part 56 Regional Consistency Regulations?

    In this action, we propose three specific revisions to the general consistency policy put forward in the existing Regional Consistency regulations, 40 CFR part 56, to accommodate the implications of judicial decisions addressing “locally or regionally applicable” actions. Specifically, we propose to revise 40 CFR 56.3 to add a provision to acknowledge an exception to the “policy” of uniformity to provide that a decision of a federal court that arises from a challenge to “locally or regionally applicable” actions would not apply uniformly nationwide, and that only decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and decisions of the D.C. Circuit Court that arise from challenges to “nationally applicable regulations . . . or final action” would apply uniformly nationwide. We also propose to revise 40 CFR 56.4 to add a provision to clarify that EPA headquarters offices' employees would not need to issue mechanisms or revise existing mechanisms developed under 40 CFR 56.4(a) to address federal court decisions arising from challenges to “locally or regionally applicable” actions. Lastly, we propose to revise 40 CFR 56.5(b) to clarify that EPA regional offices' employees would not need to seek headquarters office concurrence to act inconsistently with national policy or interpretation if such action is required by a federal court decision arising from challenges to “locally or regionally applicable” actions. In other words, through this rulemaking, the agency would be authorizing a region to act inconsistently with nationwide policy or interpretation to the extent that the region must do so in order to act consistently with a decision issued by a federal court that has direct jurisdiction over the region's action.

    The manner in which the proposed revisions would affect the EPA's operational consistency may be explained by way of example related to a challenge to the title V applicability determination made by EPA Region 5 for Summit Petroleum's oil and gas operations on tribal land in Michigan. This challenge led to the December 2012 memorandum reviewed in the D.C. Circuit Court's NEDACAP decision. In the course of a source-specific title V permitting action, EPA Region 5 had determined that Summit Petroleum's oil and gas production wells and gas sweetening plant should be considered adjacent, based on their proximity and interrelatedness to one another, and thus emissions from these units were aggregated into a single source for title V permitting purposes (see 40 CFR 71.2). Summit Petroleum challenged that determination in the Sixth Circuit, and the court ultimately issued a decision that vacated and remanded Region 5's determination. Summit Petroleum Corp. v. U.S. EPA, 690 F3d 733 (6th Cir. 2012). Although the EPA argued that its longstanding interpretation of “adjacent” as used in the source determination regulations included consideration of an activities' functional interrelatedness, see id. at 744-75 (noting the EPA's citation to nine such source determinations spanning more than 30 years), the Sixth Circuit found that the term “adjacent” as used in the EPA's source determination regulations was unambiguous and related only to physical proximity, and thus could not include consideration of functional interrelatedness, see id. at 741-744. The EPA sought rehearing of the Summit case, but the request was ultimately denied on October 29, 2012.

    Thereafter, a number of EPA regional offices sought guidance from headquarters offices regarding the impact of the Summit decision on various permitting actions, sometimes in an effort to answer questions they were receiving from state permitting authorities and permittees. Accordingly, in December 2012, an official in EPA headquarters issued a memorandum to the Air Division Directors at the EPA's regional offices explaining the applicability of the Summit decision to other EPA title V and NSR source determinations.5 The December 2012 memorandum described briefly the determination at issue in the Summit case, and the Sixth Circuit's decision. It explained that under the court's decision, the EPA could no longer consider interrelatedness in determining the adjacency of different emissions units in title V or NSR permitting decisions within the Sixth Circuit's jurisdiction (i.e., Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky). The December 2012 memorandum noted that the agency was “still assessing how to implement this decision in its permitting actions in the 6th Circuit,” and explained that outside the Sixth Circuit, the EPA intended to continue to apply its longstanding approach of considering both the proximity and interrelatedness of operations in determining whether emissions units are “adjacent” for permitting purposes.

    5 Memorandum from Stephen Page, Director of the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to the Air Division Directors. (Titled, Applicability of the Summit Decision to the EPA Title V and NSR Source Determinations; available at http://www.epa.gov/region7/air/title5/t5memos/inter2012.pdf)

    If the proposed revisions to the Regional Consistency regulations had already been in place, this type of memorandum from EPA headquarters would not have been necessary because regions, states, and other potentially affected entities would have had certainty and predictability regarding the application of such a judicial decision—they would have known that this type of permit-specific, local and regional decision would only apply in the areas under the jurisdiction of the Sixth Circuit. Accordingly, with the changes proposed, it would have been clear to everyone that EPA regions would not be bound to apply the findings of the Summit decision in states outside the Sixth Circuit, and could continue to apply the longstanding practice that had not been successfully challenged in other federal circuit courts in their regions or decided nationally by the D.C. Circuit Court or U.S. Supreme Court.

    If the proposed revisions to the Regional Consistency regulations are finalized, it will be clear that an adverse federal court decision in a case regarding locally or regionally applicable actions does not apply nationwide. As soon as these regulatory changes are effective, the EPA regional offices that are outside of the jurisdiction of a court will be able to apply the agency's nationwide practices in a consistent manner in any actions they take going forward, and they will not need to seek concurrence from headquarters offices for that continued application. Likewise, under the revised regulations, it would be clear that any such adverse decision that is or has been issued would be applied to those areas or parties that are under the issuing court's jurisdiction in any regional actions going forward. Moreover, those regions would not need to seek concurrence from EPA headquarters offices in order to follow the relevant decision, even if doing so would mean they were acting inconsistently with other EPA regional offices or national policy.

    Note that these proposed regulatory changes, if finalized, would only apply to activities conducted at EPA offices (both regional and headquarters) and also to states delegated to implement EPA rules. The proposed revisions would not affect a state implementing its SIP-approved program, as they are bound to follow their own regulations.

    B. What is the basis for the EPA's approach?

    In this rulemaking action, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR part 56 to “account for regional variances created by a judicial decision or circuit splits” by creating a specific accommodation to the general policy of uniformity of EPA actions. As explained more fully below, revising the Regional Consistency regulations to accommodate federal circuit and district court decisions that result from challenges to locally or regionally applicable actions, and thus providing for intercircuit nonaquiescence, is consistent with general principles of common law, CAA sections 301(a)(2) and 307(b)(1). It will also help to foster overall fairness and predictability regarding the scope and impact of judicial decisions under the CAA, and is a reasonable extension of the EPA's existing part 56 regulations.

    1. Accommodating Intercircuit Nonaquiescence in the Regional Consistency Regulations Is Consistent With General Principles of Common Law

    Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they have only the authority to hear and decide cases granted to them by Congress. See generally U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1 (“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”). Thus, Congress must grant a federal court subject matter jurisdiction over the type of dispute in question.

    A court of appeals generally hears appeals from the district courts located within its circuit, and the circuit is delineated by the states it contains. See generally 28 U.S.C. 41 (establishing the number and composition of the thirteen circuits; the composition is denoted by the names of states in a circuit).6 As a general matter, while an opinion from one circuit court of appeals may be persuasive precedent, it is not binding on other courts of appeals. See Hart v. Massanari, 266 F. 3d 1155, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2001). As the Ninth Circuit explained, “[T]here are also very important differences between controlling and persuasive authority. As noted, one of these is that, if a controlling precedent is determined to be on point, it must be followed. Another important distinction concerns the scope of controlling authority. Thus, an opinion of our court is binding within our circuit, not elsewhere in the country. The courts of appeals, and even the lower courts of other circuits, may decline to follow the rule we announce—and often do. This ability to develop different interpretations of the law among the circuits is considered a strength of our system. It allows experimentation with different approaches to the same legal problem, so that when the Supreme Court eventually reviews the issue it has the benefit of “percolation” within the lower courts.” Id. (emphasis added). This last point is critical to an effective federal judiciary. By revising the regulations in part 56 to fully accommodate intercircuit nonaquiescence, the EPA is acting consistently with the purpose of the federal judicial system by allowing the robust percolation of case law through the circuit courts until such time as U.S. Supreme Court review is appropriate. The vast majority of cases that the U.S. Supreme Court hears arise from circuit splits.7 Thus, revising the Regional Consistency regulations to accommodate intercircuit nonaquiescence advances the federal judiciary's ability to experiment with different approaches to similar legal problems, and the development of a circuit split that could eventually lead to U.S. Supreme Court review of important issues under the CAA.

    6 The exception is the Federal Circuit, which hears certain types of cases from anywhere in the country.

    7See Ryan Stephenson, Federal Circuit Case Selection at the U.S. Supreme Court: An Empirical Analysis, 102 Georgetown L.J. 272, 273 (2013) (“As many as 70% of the cases before the Court where certiorari has been granted present clear conflicts between either the federal courts of appeals or state courts of last resort.”).

    As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained, circuit splits are a common and acknowledged aspect of the federal legal system. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112, 135 n.26 (1977) (there is wisdom in “allowing difficult issues to mature through full consideration by the courts of appeals”). With regard to judicial consideration of the actions and decisions of federal agencies, a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court has noted that “after one circuit has disagreed with its position, an agency is entitled to maintain its independent assessment of the dictates of the statutes and regulations it is charged with administering, in the hope that other circuits, the U.S. Supreme Court, or Congress will ultimately uphold the agency's position.” Indep. Petroleum Ass'n of Am. v. Babbitt, 92 F.3d 1248, 1261 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (J. Rogers, dissenting). Likewise, legal scholars have explained that “compel[ling] an agency to follow the adverse ruling of a particular court of appeals would be to give that court undue influence in the intercircuit dialogue by diminishing the opportunity for other courts of proper venue to consider, and possibly sustain, the agency's position.” S. Estreicher & R. Revesz, Nonaquiescence by Federal Administrative Agencies, 98 Yale L. J. 679, 764 (Feb.1989). As the U.S. Supreme Court has noted, preventing the government from addressing an issue in more than one forum “would substantially thwart the development of important questions of law by freezing the first final decision rendered on a particular legal issue.” United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154, 160 (1984). In light of this important function, the U.S. Supreme Court has sought to preserve government discretion to relitigate an issue across different circuits. Id. at 163. Thus, though circuit conflict may undermine national uniformity of federal law to some degree for some period of time, it also advances the quality of decisions interpreting the law over time. See generally Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Pena, 44 F.3d 437, 446 (7th Cir. 1994) (J. Easterbrook, concurring) (agencies and courts balance whether “it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled” or “that it be settled right”) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

    2. Accommodating Intercircuit Nonaquiescence in the Regional Consistency Regulations Is Consistent With the CAA's Judicial Review Provisions

    We are also proposing these revisions to ensure that the Regional Consistency regulations are in harmony with the CAA's judicial review provisions. Congress specifically addressed in the CAA the ability of the various courts of appeals to hear appeals of decisions of the EPA. Congress created a very specific system of judicial review to address how the CAA is implemented. Specifically, Congress granted the authority to review agency actions of nationwide applicability under the CAA only to the D.C. Circuit Court. In 1977, at the same time it added the directive for the EPA to promulgate what would ultimately become the Regional Consistency regulations, Congress amended the Act to ensure that the D.C. Circuit Court, and no other circuit courts, would review nationally applicable regulations. Specifically, CAA section 307(b)(1) states that “A petition for review of action of the Administrator in promulgating any national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard, any emission standard or requirement under section 112, any standard of performance or requirement under section 111, any standard under section 202 (other than a standard required to be prescribed under section 202(b)(1)), any determination under section 202(b)(5), any control or prohibition under section 211, any standard under section 231, any rule issued under section 113, 119, or under section 120, or any other nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator under this Act may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.” CAA section 307(b)(1) (emphasis added). Congress then declared that other final CAA actions of the Administrator that are “locally or regionally applicable may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit.” Id. For example, under this system, challenges to the EPA's regulations addressing prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)—which are nationally applicable—would be heard in the D.C. Circuit Court, while challenges to application of those PSD regulations to specific permitting actions—which are locally applicable—would be heard in the appropriate circuit court. See, e.g., Alabama Power v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (challenge to the EPA's PSD rules) and Sierra Club v. EPA, 499 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 2007) (challenge to the application of those rules to a specific permitting action).

    The Committee Report accompanying the bill that ultimately became the CAA Amendments of 1977 states that the amendments to section 307(b)(1) make “it clear that any nationally applicable regulations promulgated by the Administrator under the Clean Air Act could be reviewed only in the U.S. Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia.” H.R.Rep. No. 95-294, p. 323 (1977). See also Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc. et al., 100 S.Ct. 1889, 1896 (1980) (noting that the legislative history focused on the proper venue between the D.C. Circuit Court and other federal courts). Only “essentially locally, statewide, or regionally applicable rules or orders are to be reviewed in U.S. court of appeals for the circuit in which such locality, State or region is located.” H.R.Rep. No. 95-294, at 323. The legislative history notes that in adopting this revision, the committee was largely approving portions of recommendation 305.76-4(A) of the Administrative Conference of the United States, which deals with venue, as well as the separate statement of G. William Frick that accompanied the Administrative Conference's views. Id. at 324. In his statement, Mr. Frick stated that “Congress intended review in the D.C. Circuit of `matters on which national uniformity is desirable.' Among the reasons for this are the D.C. Circuit's obvious expertise in administrative law matters and its sensitivity to Congressional mandates.” 41 FR 56767, 56769 (1976). Mr. Frick went on to note that the D.C. Circuit Court had become quite familiar with the CAA, while other circuit courts lacked frequent exposure to the Act and its legislative history.

    By placing review of nationally applicable decisions in the D.C. Circuit Court alone, Congress struck the balance between the countervailing values of improved development of the law on the one hand and national uniformity on the other. By consolidating review of nationally applicable final agency actions in the D.C. Circuit Court, Congress advanced the objective of “even and consistent national application” of certain EPA regulations (and other “final” actions) that are national in scope. Oljato Chapter of Navajo Tribe v. Train, 515 F.2d 654, 660 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (quoting S. Rep. No. 91-1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., 41(1970)). At the same time, Congress left the door open to intercircuit conflicts by granting jurisdiction over locally or regionally applicable “final” actions—like the applicability determination discussed in the example below—to the regionally-based courts of appeal. There is nothing in the legislative history to suggest that at the same time, Congress intended for the Regional Consistency provisions to somehow upset this careful balance and require the EPA to apply a locally or regionally applicable decision in all regions in order to maintain consistency.

    This proposal would firmly reestablish the balance that Congress struck in CAA section 307(b)(1), to the extent the current Regional Consistency regulations upset that balance. Thus, this proposal would ensure that only the U.S. Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit Court would issue decisions with mandatory nationwide effect, which is consistent with the clear statutory language of CAA section 307(b)(1), as well as its legislative history. As explained below, there is nothing in the language or intent of CAA section 301(a)(2) that trumps the clear statutory directive of CAA section 307(b)(1) establishing which courts have jurisdiction over which final agency actions.8 Therefore, we believe it is reasonable for the EPA to revise the Regional Consistency regulations to provide a specific accommodation for locally and regionally applicable court decisions.

    8 Moreover, to the extent there is a conflict, a canon of statutory construction states that the specific—such as the language in CAA section 307(b)(1) addressing which courts may rule on issues of national applicability—trumps the general—such as the language in section 301(a)(2) regarding regulations on fairness and uniformity. See RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 132 S. Ct. 2065, 2070-71 (2012) (“ ‘[I]t is a commonplace of statutory construction that the specific governs the general.'” quoting Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 384 (1992)).

    3. Accommodating Intercircuit Nonaquiescence in the Regional Consistency Regulations Is Consistent With CAA Section 301(a)(2)

    A specific accommodation for locally and regionally applicable court decisions also is compatible with the statutory language and Congressional intent of CAA section 301(a)(2). As described above, those provisions require the EPA Administrator to develop regulations to “assure fairness and uniformity” of agency actions. Notably, there is nothing in the text of CAA section 301(a)(2) or in the limited legislative history of that provision that would suggest Congress intended for the requirement to promulgate fairness and uniformity regulations under CAA section 301 to either upset the balance Congress struck when establishing judicial review provisions in CAA section 307, or disrupt the general principles of common law that have allowed for the percolation of issues up through the various circuit courts, as discussed above. Section 301(a)(2) of the Act does not specifically discuss whether the fairness and uniformity objectives must be applied to all court decisions; nor does it address how the agency should respond to adverse court decisions. Congress also did not include language in CAA section 301 that would expressly prohibit the EPA from promulgating regulations that accommodate intercircuit nonaquiescence, consistent with CAA section 307.

    In addition, the text of CAA section 301(a)(2)(A) necessitates a balance between uniformity and fairness; however, one does not always guarantee the other in all circumstances. These revisions would ensure the EPA has the flexibility to maintain that balance, as appropriate.

    Fairness is defined by one source as “agreeing with what is thought to be right or acceptable; treating people in a way that does not favor some over others” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fairness). As we have already discussed, it is generally acceptable to apply a Circuit Court decision only in those states over which the circuit has jurisdiction. And, as explained using an example below, there are circumstances under which applying the decision of a lower court nationwide could favor sources located in the applicable lower court's jurisdiction over those located in other circuits. As such, a standard that would specifically allow for intercircuit nonaquiescence for all CAA decisions other than those issued by the D.C. Circuit Court in response to challenges of nationwide actions would provide a uniform standard for the EPA's application of court decisions that could be anticipated by those who implement the regulations and the regulated community.

    It is not clear that the automatic, immediate nationwide application of one court's decision based on the specific facts of a locally-applicable decision would always be “fair” in the absence of the type of accommodation proposed here. For example, consider widget factories that have been diligently complying with the EPA's longstanding interpretation that the Act supports permit limits of 1.00 ppm or lower (i.e., more stringent) at widget extrusion units at major sources. However, in a challenge by a community group to a single widget factory permit in New England containing a limit of 1.00 ppm for the extrusion units, the First Circuit Court of Appeals issues a ruling with a different interpretation of the Act than the EPA's that supports a limit of 0.50 ppm or lower. A reasonable person might not find it fair to require then that all widget factories nationwide get permit revisions to establish limits of 0.50 ppm. Those factories would have been relying on the 1.00 ppm limit for years when planning budgets and making business decisions, and would likely find complying with the lower limit costly and disruptive. Arguably, fairness might be better served by limiting the impact of the First Circuit decision to the source whose permit was before the First Circuit and any other widget factories within the jurisdiction of the First Circuit, while the EPA determines how best to proceed.

    While CAA section 301(a)(2) directed the EPA to create mechanisms for identifying and standardizing various criteria, there is nothing to suggest that such standardization requires exact duplication by all EPA regions in all circumstances, including regional responses to court decisions. CAA section 301 generally relates to procedures to be followed by the EPA employees in carrying out a delegation of authority from the Administrator. Paragraph 301(a)(1) of the Act authorizes the Administrator to delegate certain powers to other EPA officials, while section 301(a)(2) of the Act requires the Administrator to establish “general applicable procedures and policies for regional officers and employees” to follow in carrying out delegated authorities. CAA section 301(a)(1)-(2). While the statute further directs that such regulations shall be designed to, among other requirements, “assure fairness and uniformity in the criteria, procedures, and policies applied by the various regions in implementing and enforcing the chapter,” on its face, CAA section 301(a)(2) does not impose a standalone requirement to attain uniformity. Cf. Air Pollution Control Dist. v. EPA, 739 F.2d 1071, 1085 (6th Cir. 1984) (rejecting claim that CAA section 301(a)(2) establishes a substantive standard that requires similar or uniform emission limitations for all sources). In addition, the section does not direct the Administrator to revise an existing regulation following an adverse court decision in a local or regional case, or otherwise constrain the EPA's existing regulatory authority. Instead, the provision requires the EPA to establish procedures that apply to its regional officers and employees, but it does not address whether or how the EPA should address judicial decisions in those procedures. To the extent that Congress prioritized judicially-created uniformity, this was expressed in CAA section 307(b)(1)—which, as discussed above, allows for regional divergence among circuit courts—not CAA section 301(a)(2)(A).

    4. Accommodating Intercircuit Nonaquiescence in the Regional Consistency Regulations Fosters Overall Fairness and Predictability Regarding the Scope and Impact of Judicial Decisions Under the CAA

    Revising the Regional Consistency regulations to include a specific accommodation for intercircuit nonaquiescence in appropriate circumstances would also help to assure fairness and predictability in the implementation of the CAA overall. Such an accommodation would foster predictability by ensuring that, unless there is an affirmative nationwide and deliberate change in the EPA's rules or policies, lower court decisions would apply only in those states/areas within the jurisdiction of the lower court, with the exception of the D.C. Circuit Court reviewing final agency actions of national applicability, consistent with CAA section 307(b)(1). Under the revised Regional Consistency regulations, as proposed, a source subject to the CAA would, as usual, need to know and follow the law in the circuit where it is located, and the law of the D.C. Circuit Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. It would not be required to follow every CAA case in every court across the country to ensure compliance with the Act.

    By revising the regulations, the EPA also accommodates the possibility that a split in the circuits could preclude the EPA from complying with both court decisions at once. Consider the following example: In a case involving a permit issued in New York, the Second Circuit upholds the EPA's longstanding position and, in doing so, confirms that the EPA's interpretation is compelled by the Act under Step One of Chevron. 9 As a result, the EPA continues to apply its longstanding interpretation, consistent with the Second Circuit's decision, in a permit issued in Alabama, an Eleventh Circuit state. In an appeal of that permit, however, the Eleventh Circuit holds that not only is the EPA's interpretation not compelled by the CAA, it is prohibited by the CAA. There are now two court decisions with conflicting Chevron Step One holdings—how could the EPA apply both of those decisions uniformly across the country? While the U.S. Supreme Court could review the issue, it might not. Further, even if the U.S. Supreme Court eventually resolved the conflict, there could be a multi-year period during which both decisions would remain applicable case law. This proposed revisions would acknowledge and address those instances in which the EPA may not be able to comply with two, conflicting decisions at the same time.

    9Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (Step one of Chevron refers to cases where the intent of Congress is clear, and therefore a court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress).

    Moreover, sometimes court decisions reviewing a regulation or statute are reversed on appeal. In other cases, a court decision may contain a ruling that appears to invalidate a national rule in the context of a source-specific action, which is inconsistent with CAA section 307(b)(1), as explained above. When either outcome occurs, intercircuit nonaquiescence allows the EPA to limit the impact of the court's ruling while it undertakes other actions. For example, in Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp., 549 U.S. 561 (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's implicit invalidation of the EPA's regulations in the context of an enforcement action. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the court of appeals had been too rigid in its insistence that the EPA interpret the term “modification” in its PSD regulations in the same way that the agency interpreted that term under the New Source Performance Standards program. Id. at 572-577. While it is true the U.S. Supreme Court eventually reversed the lower court, there was a 2-year period during which the Fourth Circuit's decision remained in place. Under the D.C. Circuit Court's interpretation of the existing Regional Consistency regulations, the EPA arguably would have been required to follow that later-reversed Fourth Circuit interpretation of its regulations nationwide during that 2 year period, even though that interpretation “read those PSD regulations in a way that seems to [the Supreme Court] too far a stretch for the language used.” Id. at 577.

    As discussed earlier, since the U.S. Supreme Court only grants a very limited number of petitions for certiorari, it is highly likely that an adverse court of appeals decision could remain in place indefinitely. This possibility is exacerbated if the EPA is prohibited by its own regulations governing consistency from seeking to create a circuit split on the issue by non-acquiescing to the first adverse decision, and maintaining its national position before other courts. Moreover, if the lower court decision is based on an interpretation of the CAA statutory language, the EPA may not be able to “fix” the problem by revising the underlying regulation because the agency could arguably be required to follow the statutory construction set forth in the lower court's decision. Such a result would be inconsistent with the general structure of the federal judiciary, the specific structure of the Act's judicial review provision, and the general directive to assure both fairness and uniformity in CAA section 301(a)(2).

    5. Accommodating Intercircuit Nonaquiescence in the Regional Consistency Regulations is a Reasonable Extension of the EPA's Part 56 Regulations

    As noted above, because there is nothing in the statutory text of CAA section 301(a)(2) that would prohibit the EPA from revising the Regional Consistency regulations to specifically accommodate intercircuit nonaquiescence, we wish to evaluate that approach. Nothing in the preambles to the proposed and final Regional Consistency regulations indicates that either commenters or the EPA considered the question whether or how the rules would be applied following judicial decisions (see generally 44 FR 13043-048 and 45 FR 85400-405, respectively). In addition, while the D.C. Circuit Court's NEDACAP decision relied heavily on the general policy statements contained in 40 CFR 56.3 of the existing regulations—which broadly endorse the fair and uniform application of criteria, policy, and procedures by EPA regional office employees—there is nothing in those general statements or any other provisions of the regulations that mandate that the EPA adopt nationwide the interpretation of the court that first addresses a legal matter in all circumstances. The lack of such a mandate shows that the focused revisions we are proposing in this rulemaking are a natural extension of the agency's existing regulations.

    The Regional Consistency regulations generally establish certain mechanisms with the goal of “identifying, preventing, and resolving regional inconsistencies” (45 FR 85400). For the EPA headquarters office employees, the regulations do this by targeting particular aspects of the Act that have the potential to present consistency problems—any rule or regulation proposed or promulgated under part 51, which sets forth requirements for the preparation, adoption and submittal of state implementation plans, and part 58, which contains requirements for measuring, monitoring, and reporting ambient air quality. However, the consistency regulations do not state a requirement for headquarters offices to apply these parts consistently in all circumstances. Instead the regulations direct headquarters office employees to develop mechanisms to assure that such rules or regulations are implemented and enforced fairly and uniformly by the regional offices. In so doing, the regulations do not state that headquarters employees are required to assure that a decision of one judicial circuit is always applied consistently in all EPA regions.

    Likewise, the provisions of the Regional Consistency regulations that apply to the EPA regional office employees also do not contain a requirement that all regional officials act the same way in all circumstances, nor do they address judicial decisions. While the EPA could change any such requirement if it did exist in our regulations, we do not need to make such a change because the narrow revisions we are proposing in this rulemaking are a natural extension of the existing regulations, which state that regional officials must assure that actions are “carried out fairly and in a manner that is consistent with the Act and Agency policy” and are “as consistent as reasonably possible with the activities of other Regional Offices” 40 CFR 56.5(a)(1)-(2) (emphasis added).

    As discussed above, Congress specifically addressed the role of and allowed for regional office divergence among circuit courts in CAA section 307(b)(1), and it would be both reasonable and fair to allow for inconsistencies among the actions of regional officials to respect those directives. Perhaps more importantly, the Regional Consistency regulations already allow for some variation between the regional offices. Specifically, 40 CFR 56.5(b) provides that regional officials “seek concurrence” from the EPA headquarters with respect to any interpretations of the Act, rule, regulation, or guidance that “may result in inconsistent application among the regional Offices.” Thus, the EPA has already acknowledged that certain regions may in some instances act inconsistently with others, and the revisions proposed in this action would simply be identifying and authorizing such inconsistency specifically when necessitated by a federal court decision reviewing an action of local or regional applicability.

    In fact, the proposed revisions would further the overall goals of the existing Regional Consistency regulations by specifically identifying the possibility of potential inconsistent actions across the EPA regions, especially where multiple courts have already addressed an issue in different ways, and standardizing a response that can be followed by all the regions, such that regions only have to apply local and regional decisions issued by courts in those areas in which the court has jurisdiction.

    6. Accommodating District Court Decisions in the Regional Consistency Regulations Is Also Appropriate

    As we have explained above, revising the Regional Consistency regulations to specifically accommodate circuit court decisions via intercircuit nonaquiescence is consistent with general principles of common law, and CAA sections 307(b)(1) and 301(a)(2). In addition, it will help to foster overall fairness and predictability regarding the scope and impact of judicial decisions under the CAA, and is a reasonable extension of the EPA's existing part 56 regulations. To the extent one could read the NEDACAP decision to imply that the Regional Consistency regulations would also require the EPA to apply district court decisions uniformly across the nation, the revisions also appropriately accommodate district court decisions, which are by their very nature even more limited in scope.

    The federal district courts are the general trial courts of the federal judiciary system. See generally 28 U.S.C. 81-131 (establishing district courts for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia). The district courts only have the authority to hear cases in a specific geographic area that raise specific claims for which Congress has granted the court jurisdiction. See generally 28 U.S.C. 1390-1431 (discussing the venue of the district courts) and 1330-1369 (discussing the jurisdiction of the district courts). A district court decision is based on the application of the law to the specific facts of a case, involving the parties to the case. Thus, while a decision from a circuit court is binding on those district courts located in the circuit, as a general matter, a decision from a district court is applicable only to those parties in the specific case in which it is issued and has no binding precedential effect on any other parties, courts or even other judges in the same district. See Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d at 1174. Given this very limited scope of district court decisions, it is reasonable to revise the Regional Consistency regulations to clearly accommodate district court decisions that result from specific locally or regionally cases in which the EPA is a party. Without such a revision, a party may try to argue that, pursuant to the Regional Consistency regulations, a single district court decision based on the specific facts in one case forms the basis for a uniform nationwide EPA position, elevating the impact of that district court decision well beyond the scope that is usually provided to district court decisions, and thus upsetting the general principles of U.S. common law upon which our federal judiciary is based.

    Likewise, as noted above, Congress created a very specific system of judicial review to address how the Act is implemented, and that system is focused on challenges to specific final actions in the circuit courts. There is nothing in CAA section 307(b)(1) or in the statutory language requiring the EPA to promulgate regional consistency rules that would suggest that Congress intended district court decisions in specific cases to have a potentially broad binding effect on the agency. Not only would such an outcome elevate a district court decision to the same level of a D.C. Circuit Court decision under CAA section 307(b)(1), but it would be directly opposed to the idea of “fairness” put forward by Congress in CAA section 301(a)(2). If the Regional Consistency regulations cannot accommodate various district court decisions, a fundamental unfairness would arise when a district court decision applying its interpretation of an agency rule to the specific facts of one EPA case in Alaska could impact how the agency would address the same rule but with very different facts in Florida. Given the various reasons set forth above for limiting application of circuit court decisions resulting from challenges to locally or regionally applicable actions, and the fact that the scope of district court decisions in the federal court system is even more narrowly defined than that of circuit court decisions, it is only reasonable to revise the Regional Consistency regulations to clearly limit the application of district court decisions only to the specific parties and facts addressed in the decision.

    7. Accommodating Intercircuit Nonaquiescence in the Regional Consistency Regulations Maintains EPA's Ability To Exercise Discretion

    Although the proposed rule revisions would make clear that the EPA is not obligated to follow judicial decisions of a federal circuit court addressing “locally or regionally applicable” actions in other circuits (or district court decisions in instances that do not involve parties to such decision), the proposal is not intended to preclude anyone from advocating that the agency exercise its discretion to follow such decisions in appropriate cases. The EPA recognizes that national policy can be influenced by insights and reasoning from judicial decisions and we do not mean to imply through this proposal that the agency would ignore persuasive judicial opinions issued in cases involving “locally or regionally applicable” actions. Such opinions may address issues of nationwide importance and could, in appropriate circumstances, lead the agency to adopt new national policy.

    V. Environmental Justice Considerations

    This document is proposing a rule revision to give the EPA flexibility to implement court decisions of a limited scope (i.e., those having local or regional applicability) while also allowing us to implement our national program under the CAA. The EPA did not conduct an environmental analysis for this rule because this rule would not directly affect the air emissions of particular sources. Because this rule will not directly affect the air emissions of particular sources, it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. Therefore, this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations.

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

    This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) because it does not result in an impact greater than $100 million in any one year or raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. The proposed rule would not create any new requirements for regulated entities, but rather provides flexibility to EPA in implementing numerous programs on a national basis.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.

    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed action on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined in the U.S. Small Business Administration size standards at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule will not impose any requirements directly on small entities. Entities potentially affected directly by this proposal include federal, state, local and tribal governments, none of which qualify as small entities.

    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As noted previously, the effect of the proposed rule would be neutral or relieve regulatory burden.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule would revise regulations that apply to the EPA, and any delegated state/local governments, only, and would not, therefore, affect the relationship between the national government and the states or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from state and local officials.

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

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule only affects our flexibility regarding judicial decisions as they apply to implementing air programs on a national basis. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through the OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    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.

    The 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 proposed rule would provide flexibility to the EPA in issuing guidance to implement its regulations with respect to judicial decisions. The results of this evaluation are contained in section V of the preamble titled “Environmental Justice Considerations.”

    K. Determination Under Section 307(d)

    Pursuant to section 307(d)(1)(V) of the CAA, the Administrator determines that this action is subject to the provisions of section 307(d). Section 307(d)(1)(V) provides that the provisions of section 307(d) apply to “such other actions as the Administrator may determine.”

    VII. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by section 301 of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7601).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 56

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Dated: August 5, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 56—REGIONAL CONSISTENCY 1. The authority citation for part 56 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 301(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7601).

    2. Section 56.3 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 56.3 Policy.

    (d) Recognize that only the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court that arise from challenges to “nationally applicable regulations . . . or final action,” as discussed in Clean Air Act section 307(b) (42 U.S.C. 7607(b)), shall apply uniformly, and to provide for exceptions to the general policy stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section with regard to decisions of the Federal courts that arise from challenges to “locally or regionally applicable” actions, as provided in Clean Air Act section 307(b) (42 U.S.C. 7607(b)).

    3. Section 56.4 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 56.4 Mechanisms for fairness and uniformity—Responsibilities of Headquarters employees.

    (c) The Administrator shall not be required to issue new mechanisms or revise existing mechanisms developed under paragraph (a) of this section to address the inconsistent application of any rule, regulation, or policy that may arise in response to the limited jurisdiction of either a Federal circuit court decision arising from challenges to “locally or regionally applicable” actions, as provided in Clean Air Act section 307(b) (42 U.S.C. 7607(b)), or a Federal district court decision.

    4. Section 56.5 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (b) and paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
    § 56.5 Mechanisms for fairness and uniformity—Responsibilities of Regional Office employees.

    (b) * * * However, the responsible official in a regional office will not be required to seek such concurrence from the appropriate EPA headquarters office for actions that may result in inconsistent application if such inconsistent application is required in order to act in accordance with a Federal court decision:

    (1) Issued by a Circuit Court in challenges to “locally or regionally applicable” actions, as provided in Clean Air Act section 307(b) (42 U.S.C. 7607(b)), if that Circuit Court has direct jurisdiction over the geographic areas that the regional office official is addressing, or

    (2) Issued by a District Court in a specific case if the party the regional office official is addressing was also a party in the case that resulted in the decision.

    [FR Doc. 2015-20506 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    80 160 Wednesday, August 19, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Document Number AMS-FV-14-0016, FV-14-326] United States Standards for Grades of Canned Baked Beans AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposes to revise the United States Standards for Grades of Canned Baked Beans. AMS is proposing to replace process-specific language “Product description” in the standard with language reflective of current canned baked bean manufacturing practices. Additionally, AMS proposes separating the canned dried beans, canned pork and beans, and canned baked beans grade standards from one shared standard document into three separate standard documents. These changes would bring the grade standards for canned baked beans in line with the present quality levels being marketed today and would provide guidance in the effective use of these products.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted via the Internet: http://www.regulations.gov; by email [email protected]; or by mail to Brian E. Griffin, Standardization Branch, Specialty Crops Inspection Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 0709, South Building; STOP 0247, Washington, DC 20250; fax: (202) 690-1527. Copies of the proposed revised United States Standards for Grades of Canned Baked Beans are available at the addresses cited above and at the AMS Web site at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/scihome. All comments should reference the document number, date, and page number of this issue of the Federal Register. All comments will be posted without change, including any personal information provided. All comments submitted in response to this notice will be included in the public record and will be made available to the public on the Internet via http://www.regulations.gov. Comments will be made available for public inspection at the above address during regular business hours or can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Contact Brian E. Griffin at the address above, phone (202) 720-5021, or fax (202) 690-1527.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    AMS is proposing to revise the U.S. Standards for Grades of Canned Baked Beans using the procedures that appear in part 36 of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36). Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The U.S. standards for grades of fruits and vegetables that are not connected with Federal marketing orders or U.S. import requirements no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Program, and are available on the Internet at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/scihome.

    Background: In September 2013, AMS received a petition from a professor emeritus in food science from Michigan State University asking AMS to consider revising the current U.S. grade standards for canned baked beans to account for advances in industry processing technology. The petitioner requested the removal of the following text from the text of the Product description: “The product is prepared by washing, soaking, and baking by the application of dry heat in open or loosely covered containers in a closed oven at atmospheric pressure for sufficient prolonged time to produce a typical texture and flavor” and replacing it with the following text, “The product is prepared by heating beans and sauce in a closed or open container for a period of time sufficient to provide texture, flavor, color and consistency attributes that are typical for this product.”

    AMS believes the text “washing, soaking” needs to be retained and proposes the following revision to the text of the Product description: “The product is prepared by washing, soaking, and heating beans and sauce in a closed or open container for a period of time sufficient to provide texture, flavor, color, and consistency attributes that are typical for this product.”

    A copy of the petitioner's request and supporting documentation is located on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov along with the current U.S. Standards for Grades of Canned Baked Beans together with the revisions proposed in this notice. The proposed revisions to these grade standards would provide a common language for trade and better reflect the current marketing of canned baked beans.

    Additional proposed changes to the U.S. Standards for Grades of Canned Baked Beans include separating the canned dried beans grade standards, canned pork and beans grade standards, and the canned baked beans grade standards into individual standard documents. These grade standards are currently recognized as three individual standards, but are contained in one document. No changes to content are recommended at this time for the canned dried beans or canned pork and beans grade standards.

    In December 2013, AMS developed a discussion draft of the revised canned baked bean grade standards that included the proposed changes. This draft was distributed to the U.S. Dry Bean Council (USDBC), a trade association representing U.S. growers, shippers, processors, packagers, and canners of dry beans; and to the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a trade association of the food industry. Members of the USDBC and GMA reviewed the discussion draft. Responding members supported the proposed changes to the Product description, and the proposed change to separate the canned dried beans, canned pork and beans, and the canned baked beans grade standards into the documents.

    Additionally, AMS submitted the discussion draft to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for guidance on the proposed changes. The FDA expressed concern over the removal of the term “baking” from the process while continuing to use the term “baked” as part of the name of the food. The FDA did not object to a name that appropriately describes the food as per the regulations in 21 CFR 101.3.

    AMS discussed further FDA's concerns with the petitioner. A second discussion draft was developed and submitted to the FDA and received a positive response. The second discussion draft was then submitted to the aforementioned industry groups for a second round of comments. Both groups responded positively to the changes.

    The proposed revised text for Section 52.6461 Product description reads as follows: “The product is prepared by washing, soaking, and baking beans and sauce through the application of heat in a closed or open container for a period of time sufficient to provide texture, flavor, color, and consistency attributes that are typical for this product.”

    Agricultural Marketing Service

    AMS is soliciting comments on the proposed revision of the U.S. Standards for Grades of Canned Baked Beans. In particular, AMS would welcome comments and information regarding the possible impact on processors and growers. Further details are provided in the petition and are available from Brian E. Griffin at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section or can be found on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. This notice provides for a 60-day comment period for interested parties to comment on the proposed revision of the U.S. Standards for Grades of Canned Baked Beans.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20445 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2015-0033] Availability of Updated FSIS Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book AGENCY:

    Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability and opportunity for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing the Agency's intent to revise the Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book. The Agency has stopped adding policy guidance to it; however, FSIS will continue to amend or remove items in the book, as necessary, to remain consistent with Agency policies and regulations. The revised Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book will provide updated information for establishments to use when creating new labels and when modifying existing labels for meat and poultry products.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    A downloadable version of the Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book is available for viewing and printing at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulatory-compliance/labeling/Labeling-Policies. No hard copies have been published.

    FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this notice. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: This Web site provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the on-line instructions at that site for submitting comments.

    Mail, including CD-ROMs: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Patriots Plaza 3, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 3782, Room 8-163B, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Hand- or courier-delivered submittals: Deliver to Patriots Plaza 3, 355 E Street SW., Room 8-163A, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Instructions: All items submitted by mail or electronic mail must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2015-0033. Comments received in response to this docket will be made available for public inspection and posted without change, including any personal information, to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Docket: For access to background documents or to comments received, go to the FSIS Docket Room at Patriots Plaza 3, 355 E Street SW., Room 164-A, Washington, DC 20250-3700 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Daniel L. Engeljohn, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development; Telephone: (202) 205-0495, or by Fax: (202) 720-2025.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    FSIS is responsible for ensuring that the Nation's commercial supply of meat and poultry is safe, wholesome, and properly labeled and packaged.

    On November 7, 2013, FSIS published the final rule “Prior Label Approval Systems: Generic Label Approval.” This final rule amended the meat and poultry products inspection regulations to expand the circumstances under which labels of meat and poultry products would be deemed to be generically approved by the Agency (78 FR 66826).

    Effective January 6, 2014, FSIS regulations (9 CFR 412.1(c)) require only four categories of labels to be submitted to the Labeling and Program Delivery Staff (LPDS) for approval. One category requiring the submission of labels is special statements and claims (9 CFR 412.1(c)(3)), as described in 9 CFR 412.1(e). Under this paragraph, special statements and claims that are defined in FSIS's regulations or in its Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book, except for “natural” and negative claims, and that comply with those regulations and policies, are deemed to be approved by the Agency without being submitted for evaluation and approval.

    Comments that FSIS had received in response to the December 5, 2011, proposal (76 FR 75809) that preceded the final rule asked the Agency to update its Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book. In response to these comments, FSIS decided to stop adding new policy guidance to the book but to continue to amend or remove items in the book, as necessary.

    FSIS has revised the “Chicken Cordon Bleu” entry in response to a petition submitted to the Agency and removed the entry for “Ham, Smithfield” to ensure consistency with the regulations on the use of geographic terminology on labeling (9 CFR 317.8(b)(1). FSIS announced these changes in its Constituent Update. 1 This calendar year FSIS will revise the “Caddies” entry in the Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book in response to a petition submitted to the Agency to reflect current industry practice. Also, this calendar year, FSIS will update the entry for “Heart Meat” to reflect the regulatory definition for meat in 9 CFR 301.2 and will modify the entry for “Quality Grade Terms and Subjective Terms on Labels” to make it consistent with the Agricultural Marketing Service policy on such terms. FSIS will announce these changes and all other future revisions of the book in the FSIS Constituent Update, which is accessible on the Agency's Web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/newsroom/meetings/newsletters/constituent-updates/constituent-updates-2015. The Agency will convey new labeling guidance by other means, such as compliance policy guides and will announce them through the Constituent Update or other appropriate means.

    1 See http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/newsroom/meetings/newsletters/constituent-updates/archive/2015/ConstUpdate040315; http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/newsroom/meetings/newsletters/constituent-updates/archive/2015/ConstUpdate050115.

    USDA Nondiscrimination Statement

    No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

    To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

    Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

    Mail

    U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.

    Fax

    (202) 690-7442.

    Email

    [email protected]

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    Additional Public Notification

    Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

    FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password-protect their accounts.

    Done at Washington, DC on: August 12, 2015. Alfred V. Almanza, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20435 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-001] Potassium Permanganate From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    In response to a request by Pacific Accelerator Limited (“PAL”), the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) for the period of review (“POR”) January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013.1 The Department has determined that PAL had no entries of subject merchandise during the POR.

    1See Antidumping Duty Order; Potassium Permanganate from the People's Republic of China, 49 FR 3897 (January 31, 1984).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 19, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Walker, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0413.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by the order are shipments of potassium permanganate, an inorganic chemical produced in free-flowing, technical, and pharmaceutical grades. Potassium permanganate is currently classifiable under item 2841.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS item number is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise remains dispositive.

    Background

    On February 10, 2015, the Department published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review.2 On March 12, 2015, PAL submitted a case brief.3 On March 17, 2015, the petitioner, Carus Corporation (“Carus”) submitted a rebuttal brief.4 On June 2, 2015, we extended the final results to August 10, 2015.5

    2See Potassium Permanganate from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013, 80 FR 7413 (February 10, 2015) (“Preliminary Results”).

    3See PAL's March 12, 2015 submission.

    4See Petitioner's March 17, 2015 submission.

    5See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary, through James Doyle, Office Director, from Paul Walker, Case Analyst, “Potassium Permanganate from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” dated June 2, 2015.

    Final Determination of No Reviewable Transactions

    As noted in the Preliminary Results, PAL made only one sale of subject merchandise on the last day of the POR, which entered the United States five months after the end of the review period. On July 17, 2014, in response to the Department's Section C Supplemental, PAL reported having no entries during the POR,6 which we confirmed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).7 For these final results, because the record contains no evidence to the contrary, we continue to find that PAL did not have any entries during the POR.

    6See PAL's July 17, 2014, submission at 11.

    7See Memorandum to the File, from Alexander Montoro, International Trade Compliance Analyst entitled, “CBP Data Query Results,” dated February 2, 2015.

    Consistent with the Department's assessment practice in non-market economy (“NME”) cases,8 where a respondent has no entries during the period of review, it is appropriate not to rescind the review in part in this circumstance but, rather, to complete the review with respect to that respondent and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.9 Therefore, the Department finds that it is appropriate not to rescind the review in these circumstances, but rather to complete the review with respect to PAL and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.10

    8See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) (“NME Reseller Policy”).

    9See, e.g., Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Administrative Review and Final Results of New Shipper Review; 2013, 80 FR 34619 (June 17, 2015).

    10See NME Reseller Policy.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case brief and the rebuttal brief filed in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.11 The issue parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum follows as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    11See Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Potassium Permanganate from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results,” dated concurrently with this notice (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”).

    Final Results of Review

    Because record evidence indicates that PAL, the only company under review, had no reviewable transactions during the POR, and consistent with our assessment practice, it is appropriate not to rescind the review.12 Therefore, for these final results, we have completed the review with respect to PAL and continue to find that it had no reviewable transactions during the POR. We note that PAL does not have an individual rate, or a separate rate, and has never been reviewed in any other prior segment. Thus, PAL is considered part of the PRC-wide entity, and the PRC-wide entity rate is 128.94 percent.

    12See NME Reseller Policy.

    Assessment Rates

    Because the single company under review was found to have no reviewable transactions, we have not calculated any assessment (or cash deposit) rates in this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that received a separate rate in a prior completed segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRC-wide entity, which is 128.94 percent; 13 and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter.

    13See Potassium Permanganate from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 26625 (May 23, 1994).

    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 7, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum: 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Comment: Finding of No Reviewable Entries 5. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-20493 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-971] Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Correction to Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2012 AGENCY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 19, 2015.

    SUMMARY:

    On July 14, 2015, the Department of Commerce (Department) published in the Federal Register its notice of final results and partial rescission for the countervailing duty administrative review of multilayered wood flooring (wood flooring) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period of review January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012.1 The net countervailable subsidy rate for one producer under review, Linyi Youyou Wood Co., Ltd., an affiliate of Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd. (also known as The Lizhong Wood Industry Limited Company of Shanghai), was inadvertently omitted from the notice. Therefore, this company should be included in the listing of producers and/or exporters under review and its net subsidy rate is as follows:

    1See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission; 2012, 80 FR 41007 (July 14, 2015) (Final Results).

    Producer/Exporter Net subsidy rate Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd. (also known as The Lizhong Wood Industry Limited Company of Shanghai); Linyi Youyou Wood Co., Ltd. 0.99

    No other changes have been made to the Final Results.

    Assessment Rates

    Consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), we intend to issue assessment instructions to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) fifteen days after the date of publication of these final results. We will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on period of review entries in the amounts shown above.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, we intend to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown above on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed companies (except Zhejiang Layo Wood Industry Co., Ltd., its affiliate Jiaxing Brilliant Import & Export Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co., Ltd., which are excluded from the Order),2 we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to companies covered by the Amended Order, 3 but not examined in this review, are those established in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding for each company. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    2  See Order, 76 FR at 76694.

    3  See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Determination of Countervailing Duty Investigation and Notice of Amended Countervailing Duty Order, 77 FR 71167 (November 29, 2012).

    This corrected notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20494 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-891] Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective date: August 19, 2015.

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks and certain parts thereof (hand trucks) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation for this antidumping duty order.

    Contact Information: Jacqueline Arrowsmith, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On March 2, 2015, the Department initiated this sunset review on the antidumping duty order on hand trucks from the PRC, pursuant to section 751(c) and 752 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).1 As a result of the review, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, and therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail were the order to be revoked.2 On August 5, 2015, the ITC published its determination pursuant to section 751(c) and 752 of the Act that revocation of the antidumping duty order of hand trucks from the PRC would lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.3

    1See Initiation of Five Year (“Sunset”) Review, 80 FR 11164 (March 2, 2015) (Sunset Initiation).

    2See Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 80 FR 39748 (July 10, 2015).

    3See Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From China, [Investigation No. 731-TA-1059 (Second Review), 80 FR 46603 (ITC August 5, 2015).

    Scope of the Order for Hand Trucks

    The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order consists of hand trucks manufactured from any material, whether assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, suitable for any use, and certain parts thereof, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, and any combination thereof.

    A complete or fully assembled hand truck is a hand-propelled barrow consisting of a vertically disposed frame having a handle or more than one handle at or near the upper section of the vertical frame; at least two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame; and a horizontal projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, perpendicular or angled to the vertical frame, at or near the lower section of the vertical frame. The projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, slides under a load for purposes of lifting and/or moving the load.

    That the vertical frame can be converted from a vertical setting to a horizontal setting, then operated in that horizontal setting as a platform, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of this petition. That the vertical frame, handling area, wheels, projecting edges or other parts of the hand truck can be collapsed or folded is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition. That other wheels may be connected to the vertical frame, handling area, projecting edges, or other parts of the hand truck, in addition to the two or more wheels located at or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition. Finally, that the hand truck may exhibit physical characteristics in addition to the vertical frame, the handling area, the projecting edges or toe plate, and the two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition.

    Examples of names commonly used to reference hand trucks are hand truck, convertible hand truck, appliance hand truck, cylinder hand truck, bag truck, dolly, or hand trolley. They are typically imported under heading 8716.80.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), although they may also be imported under heading 8716.80.5090. Specific parts of a hand truck, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, or any combination thereof, are typically imported under heading 8716.90.5060 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope is dispositive.

    Excluded from the scope are small two-wheel or four-wheel utility carts specifically designed for carrying loads like personal bags or luggage in which the frame is made from telescoping tubular material measuring less than 5/8 inch in diameter; hand trucks that use motorized operations either to move the hand truck from one location to the next or to assist in the lifting of items placed on the hand truck; vertical carriers designed specifically to transport golf bags; and wheels and tires used in the manufacture of hand trucks.

    Excluded from the scope is a multifunction cart that combines, among others, the capabilities of a wheelbarrow and dolly. The product comprises a steel frame that can be converted from vertical to horizontal functionality, two wheels toward the lower end of the frame and two removable handles near the top. In addition to a foldable projection edge in its extended position, it includes a permanently attached steel tub or barrow. This product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as the “Aerocart.”

    Continuation of the Order

    As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of this antidumping duty order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks from the PRC. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise.

    The effective date of the continuation of this order will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of this order not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation of the order.

    This five-year (sunset) review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20495 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE116 International Pacific Halibut Commission Appointments AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of call for nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    In May 2015, NOAA Fisheries publicly solicited nominations for two presidential appointments to serve as U.S. Commissioners to the IPHC. This multi-step nomination process is intended to provide extensive participation by stakeholders in the Pacific halibut fishery and result in the appointment of two highly qualified individuals to represent the U.S. Government in this important international fisheries management organization. The most recent IPHC public nomination process yielded two names for the two expiring seats, both re-nominations. U.S. Commissioners to the IPHC are appointed for a term not to exceed 2 years, but are eligible for reappointment. While this recent solicitation of nominations resulted in two strong candidates, NOAA Fisheries is seeking a greater number of nominations from which to propose two candidates for appointment by the President. Additionally, the lack of a larger candidate pool impacts the ability of recommending officials to propose Alternate Commissioners. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, may designate Alternative U.S. Commissioners to serve in the absence of duly appointed U.S. Commissioners. Nominations for IPHC U.S. Commissioner and letters of public support that have already been submitted in response to the original solicitation notice do not need to be resubmitted. Nominations are open to all qualified individuals and may include current Commissioners.

    DATES:

    Nominations must be received by September 18, 2015. A list of nominees will be published on the NMFS Alaska Regional Office Web site (http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/) on September 23, 2015. Public comments relating to this list of nominees will be accepted until October 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Nominations for U.S. Commissioners to the IPHC may be made in writing to Mr. Patrick E. Moran, Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, National Marine Fisheries Service, at 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Nominations may also be sent via fax (301-713-2313) or email ([email protected]). Please send all public comments via email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Patrick E. Moran, (301) 427-8370.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The IPHC is a bilateral regional fishery management organization established pursuant to the Convention between Canada and the United States for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention). The Convention was signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, and was amended by a Protocol Amending the Convention signed at Washington, DC, on March 29, 1979. The Convention's central objective is to develop the stocks of Pacific halibut in waters off the west coasts of Canada and the United States to levels that will permit the optimum yield from the Pacific halibut fishery and to maintain the stocks at those levels. The IPHC fulfills this objective in part by recommending Pacific halibut fishery conservation and management measures for approval by the United States and Canada. Pursuant to the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982, the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce, may accept or reject, on behalf of the United States, conservation and management measures recommended by the IPHC. 16 U.S.C. 773b. Measures accepted by the Secretary of State are adopted as binding regulations governing fishing for Pacific halibut in Convention waters of the United States. 16 U.S.C. 773c(b)(1). More information on the IPHC can be found at http://www.iphc.int.

    Section 773a of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (16 U.S.C. 773a) requires that the United States be represented on the IPHC by three U.S. Commissioners. U.S. Commissioners are appointed for a term not to exceed 2 years, but are eligible for reappointment. Of the Commissioners:

    (1) One must be an official of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and

    (2) Two must be knowledgeable or experienced concerning the Northern Pacific halibut fishery; of these, one must be a resident of Alaska and the other shall be a nonresident of Alaska. Of the three commissioners described in paragraphs (1) and (2), one must also be a voting member of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.

    (3) Commissioners who are not Federal employees are not considered to be Federal employees except for the purposes of injury compensation or tort claims liability as provided in section 8101 et seq. of title 5 and section 2671 et seq. of title 28.

    In their official IPHC duties, Commissioners represent the interests of the United States and all of its stakeholders in the Pacific halibut fishery. These duties require a modest amount of travel (typically two or three trips per year lasting less than a week), and travel expenses are paid by the U.S. Department of State. Commissioners receive no compensation for their services.

    Nomination Process

    NOAA Fisheries is currently accepting nominations for two U.S. Commissioners for the IPHC who are not officials of NOAA. Successful nominees will be considered for appointment by the President and (pending Presidential action) interim designation by the Department of State.

    Nomination packages should provide details of an individual's knowledge and experience in the Pacific halibut fishery. Examples of such knowledge and/or experience could include (but are not limited to) such activities as: Participation in commercial, tribal, Community Development Quota (CDQ) and/or sport and charterboat halibut fishing operations; participation in halibut processing operations; and participation in Pacific halibut management activities.

    Nomination packages should document an individual's qualifications and state of residence. Self-nominations are acceptable, and current and former IPHC Commissioners are eligible for reappointment. Résumés, curriculum vitae, and/or letters of recommendation are useful but not required. Nomination packages will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by officials in NOAA and the Department of Commerce who are familiar with the duties and responsibilities of IPHC Commissioners; evaluations will consider the aggregate of an individual's prior experience and knowledge of the Pacific halibut fishery, residency requirements, and any letters of recommendation provided. Nominees will be notified of their status (including rejection or approval) and any need for further information once the nomination process is complete.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. John Henderschedt, Director, Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20440 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of telephonic meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Electronic Monitoring Workgroup (EMWG) will meet by teleconference September 8, 2015.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 8, 2015 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held telephonically at the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. Please call (907) 271-2896.

    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Diana Evans, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda Tuesday, September 8, 2015

    The agenda will include: (a) Review the draft 2016 EM Pre-Implementation Plan (b) discuss other 2016 EM research, and (c) scheduling and other business. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at http://www.npfmc.org/

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20405 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Bay Watershed Education and Training Program National Evaluation System AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Bronwen Rice, NOAA Office of Education, (202) 482-6797 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

    The NOAA Office of Education's Bay Watershed Education and Training (B-WET) program seeks to contribute to NOAA's mission by supporting education efforts to create an environmentally literate citizenry with the knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to protect watersheds and related ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems. B-WET currently funds projects in seven regions (California, Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, Hawaii, New England, and the Pacific Northwest). B-WET has created an across-region, internal evaluation system to provide ongoing feedback on program implementation and outcomes to ensure maximum quality and efficiency of the B-WET program. The evaluation system is sustained by B-WET staff with occasional assistance from an outside contractor.

    B-WET awardees and the awardees' professional development teacher-participants are asked to voluntarily complete online survey forms to provide evaluation data. One individual from each awardee organization is asked to complete a form once per year of the award, and the teacher participants are asked to complete one form at the end of their professional development program and another form at the end of the following school year.

    II. Method of Collection

    Respondents submit their information electronically on web-based survey forms.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0658.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved collection).

    Affected Public: Not-for-profit organizations and individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: Given the funding levels of the past three fiscal years, NOAA B-WET estimates that approximately 86 not-for-profit awardees and 4,000 teachers will be invited to respond each year.

    Estimated Time per Response: Awardee-respondents will complete an online survey in 60 minutes and teacher-respondents will complete two online surveys in 30 minutes each.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,325.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20485 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE119 Permanent Advisory Committee To Advise the U.S. Commissioners to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission; Meeting Announcement AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces a meeting of the Permanent Advisory Committee (PAC) to advise the U.S. Commissioners to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) on October 14-October 15, 2015. Meeting topics are provided under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

    DATES:

    The meeting of the PAC will be held on October 14, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. HST (or until business is concluded) and October 15, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. HST (or until business is concluded).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Outrigger Reef Waikiki Beach Resort, Diamond Head Terrace, 2169 Kalia Road, Honolulu, Hawaii 96815.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emily Crigler, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office; telephone: 808-725-5036; facsimile: 808-725-5215; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), a Permanent Advisory Committee, or PAC, has been convened to advise the U.S. Commissioners to the WCPFC, certain members of which have been appointed by the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the U.S. Commissioners to the WCPFC. The PAC supports the work of the U.S. National Section to the WCPFC in an advisory capacity. The U.S. National Section is made up of the U.S. Commissioners and the Department of State. NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office provides administrative and technical support to the PAC in cooperation with the Department of State. The next regular annual session of the WCPFC (WCPFC12) is scheduled for December 3-December 8, 2015, in Bali, Indonesia. More information on this meeting and the WCPFC, established under the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, can be found on the WCPFC Web site: http://wcpfc.int/.

    Meeting Topics

    The PAC meeting topics may include the following: (1) Outcomes of the 2014 Annual Meeting and 2015 sessions of the WCPFC Scientific Committee, Northern Committee, and Technical and Compliance Committee; (2) conservation and management measures for bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna, skipjack tuna and other species for 2016 and beyond; (3) a permanent measure for the WCPFC compliance monitoring scheme and development of a companion measure addressing responses to non-compliance; (4) potential U.S. proposals to WCPFC12 (5) input and advice from the PAC on issues that may arise at WCPFC12; (6) potential proposals from other WCPFC members; and (7) other issues.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting location is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Emily Crigler at (808) 725-5036 by September 22, 2015.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 6902

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20523 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE078 Presidential Task Force on Combating Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing and Seafood Fraud Action Plan; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Ocean Council Committee on IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud (NOC Committee) extends the comment period from September 2, 2015, to September 11, 2015, on the notice, which published August 3, 2015, seeking public input on draft principles for determining seafood species at risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud (“at risk”) and a draft list of “at risk” species developed using the draft principles. The comment period is being extended in order to provide further opportunity for the public to review and provide thoughtful comment.

    DATES:

    The deadline for written comments on the notice published on August 3, 2015 (80 FR 45955) is extended from September 2, 2015, to September 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0090, 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-2014-0090, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Danielle Rioux, 1315 East-West Highway; Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.

    Webinar: A webinar will be held on August 25th, 3:30-5 p.m. Eastern time. Please go to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/iuu/taskforce.html for information on how to join.

    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 the Working Group. 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. The Working Group will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Danielle Rioux, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service (phone 301-427-8516, or email [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    According to NOAA, in 2013, U.S. fishers landed 9.9 billion pounds of fish and shellfish worth $5.5 billion. Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and seafood fraud undermine the sustainability of U.S. and global seafood stocks and negatively impact general ecosystem health. At the same time, IUU fishing and fraudulent seafood products distort legal markets and unfairly compete with the products of law-abiding fishers and seafood industries. On March 15, 2015, the Presidential Task Force on Combating IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud (Task Force), co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and State, took an historic step to address these issues and published its Action Plan for Implementing Task Force Recommendations (Action Plan).

    The Action Plan (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/iuu/noaa_taskforce_report_final.pdf) articulates the proactive steps that Federal agencies will take to implement the recommendations the Task Force made to the President in December 2014 on a comprehensive framework of integrated programs to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. The Action Plan identifies actions that will strengthen enforcement, create and expand partnerships with state and local governments, industry, and non-governmental organizations, and create a risk-based traceability program to track seafood from harvest to entry into U.S. commerce, including through the use of existing traceability mechanisms. The work the Task Force began continues under the oversight of the National Ocean Council's Committee on IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud (NOC Committee), established this past April, 2015.

    The notice published on August 3, 2015, (80 FR 45955) is one of several steps in the plan to implement Task Force Recommendations 14 and 15, identifying “species of fish or seafood that are presently of particular concern because they are currently subject to significant seafood fraud or because they are at significant risk of being caught by IUU fishing.” To begin implementing these recommendations, the NOC Committee created a Working Group (Working Group), led by NOAA and composed of members from partner agencies: Department of State, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

    Extension of Comment Period

    We initially requested comments by September 2, 2015. In order to provide further opportunity for the public to review and provide thoughtful comment, NMFS is extending the comment period on the notice—that published August 3, 2015 (80 FR 45955)—until September 11, 2015.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Eileen Sobeck, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20434 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive Patent License AGENCY:

    Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the provisions of Part 404 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, which implements Public Law 96-517, as amended; the Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant the University of Dayton, a research university duly organized, validly existing, and in good standing in the State of Ohio, having a place of business at 300 College Park, Dayton, OH 45469.

    DATES:

    The Air Force intends to grant a license for the patent and pending applications unless a written objection is received within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of publication of this Notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written objection should be sent to: Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Rm 101, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Rm. 101, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    An exclusive, with respect to future sub licensees, license in any right, title, and interest of the Air Force in: U.S. Application No. 14/754,914, entitled “Layered Polymer-Based Capacitor Device,” by James Grote et al., and filed on June 30, 2015.

    Henry Williams, Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20368 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL15-85-000] New Hampshire Transmission, LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding, Setting Refund Effective Date, and Due Date for Intervention

    On August 12, 2015, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL15-85-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into the justness and reasonableness of New Hampshire Transmission, LLC's recovery of cost related to the development of its SeaLink project through the Regional Network Service formula rates. ISO New England Inc., 152 FERC ¶ 61,121 (2015).

    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL15-85-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Any interested person desiring to become a party in the above-referenced proceeding must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214) by 5 p.m. Eastern time on September 2, 2015. The Commission encourages electronic submission of interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original hard copy of the intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20425 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2432-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 1893R4 Westar Energy, Inc. (Savonburg) NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150813-5178.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2433-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 1897R4 Westar Energy, Inc. NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150813-5180.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2434-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 1978R4 Westar Energy, Inc. NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150813-5185.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2435-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-08-13_SA 2793 ATC-City of Eagle River CFA to be effective 10/12/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150813-5186.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2436-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-08-13_SA 2796 ATC-City of Kaukauna CFA to be effective 10/12/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150813-5187.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2437-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-08-13_SA 2805 ATC-Rock Energy Cooperative CFA to be effective 10/12/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150813-5188.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2438-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-08-13_SA 2806 ATC-City of Oconomowoc CFA to be effective 10/12/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150813-5193.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2439-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2390R3 Westar Energy, Inc. NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150813-5196.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2440-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Rochelle Municipal Utilities.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Rochelle Municipal Utilities submit Service Agreement No. 4232 with ComEd to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150813-5217.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20461 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. P-1744-039] PacifiCorp; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the Alternative Licensing Process, and Requesting Cooperating Agency Status

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent To File License Application and Request to Use the Alternative Licensing Process.

    b. Project No.: 1744-039.

    c. Date Filed: June 1, 2015.

    d. Submitted By: PacifiCorp.

    e. Name of Project: Weber Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: On the Weber River, in Weber, Davis, and Morgan Counties, Utah. The project occupies 11.4 acres of United States lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.

    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Eve Davies, PacifiCorp, 1407 West North Temple, Ste. 110, Salt Lake City, UT 84116; (801) 220-2245; email—[email protected]

    i. FERC Contact: Claire McGrath at (202) 502-8290; or email at [email protected]

    j. PacifiCorp filed its request to use the Alternative Licensing Process on June 1, 2015. PacifiCorp provided public notices of its request on May 29 and May 31, 2015. On July 10, 2015, PacifiCorp provided a subsequent public notice of its request, which included the required statement that comments on the request to use the ALP must be filed with the Commission within 30 days of the notice. In a letter dated August 13, 2015, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved PacifiCorp's request to use the Alternative Licensing Process.

    k. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such requests described in paragraph o below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ¶ 61,076 (2001).

    l. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402. We are also initiating consultation with the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.

    m. With this notice, we are designating PacifiCorp as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

    n. PacifiCorp filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.

    o. Deadline for filing requests for cooperating agency status: 60 days from the date of this notice.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-1744-039.

    p. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov), using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in paragraph h.

    q. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No.1744-039. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by May 31, 2018.

    r. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20464 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2013-000.

    Applicants: Talen Energy Marketing, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to June 26, 2015 Talen Energy Marketing, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 8/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150811-5145.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2425-000.

    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.

    Description: Initial rate filing: Air Products TX NITSA Refile to be effective 9/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 8/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150813-5004.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2426-000.

    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.

    Description: Proposed Reactive Power Revenue Requirements of Northern Indiana Public Service Company for twelve generating facilities located in the MISO pricing zone under ER15-2426.

    Filed Date: 8/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150812-5196.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2427-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., American Transmission Systems, Incorporated.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI submits First Revised Service Agreement Nos. 3992 & 3994 to be effective 10/13/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150813-5075.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2428-000.

    Applicants: Exelon Framingham, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation to be effective 8/14/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150813-5135.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2429-000.

    Applicants: Exelon New Boston, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation to be effective 8/14/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150813-5142.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2430-000.

    Applicants: Exelon Wyman, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation to be effective 8/14/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150813-5149.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2431-000.

    Applicants: Exelon West Medway, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation to be effective 8/14/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150813-5153.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: EL13-52-000; RR13-12-000.

    Applicants: Western Electricity Coordinating Council.

    Description: Informational Filing of Peak Reliability.

    Filed Date: 8/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150811-5214.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20462 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1187-000.

    Applicants: Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Removal of Expired Non-Conforming Service Agreement to be effective9/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150811-5027.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1188-000.

    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Scheduling & Curtailment to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150811-5146.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1189-000.

    Applicants: Empire Pipeline, Inc.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Scheduling & Curtailment 2015 to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150811-5160.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20427 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-188-000.

    Applicants: St. Paul Cogeneration, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act for Disposition of Jurisidictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Consideration of St. Paul Cogeneration, LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/11/15.

    Accession Number: 20150811-5209.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-948-007.

    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc., Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C., Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc., Entergy Texas, Inc.

    Description: Motion of Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of the Entergy Operating Companies for temporary and limited waiver of formula rate implementation requirements, et al. for additional two-month period.

    Filed Date: 8/7/15.

    Accession Number: 20150807-5262.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-519-002.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Errata to Revisions to ISO Tariff Related to Order No. 676-H Compliance to be effective 5/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150812-5039.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1705-002.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Indefinite Deferral of Burlington Wheeling to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 8/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150812-5127.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2189-001.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Suspension of Joint OATT Higher of Amendment to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 8/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150812-5147.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2417-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Amended GIA and Distribution Service Agreement Wind Stream Operations, LLC to be effective10/12/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150812-5002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2418-000.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Modifications to BART's NITSA—Schedule 7 PSE Service to be effective 1/1/2013.

    Filed Date: 8/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150812-5016.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2419-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Southern California Edison Company for the Edison-Riverside San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Firm Transmission Service Agreement.

    Filed Date: 8/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150812-5054.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2420-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2532 EDF Renewable Development, Inc. GIA Cancellation to be effective 7/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150812-5089.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2421-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 1889R4 Westar Energy, Inc. (Mindenmines) NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150812-5101.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2422-000.

    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.

    Description: Portland General Electric Company submits Average System Cost Filing for Sales of Electric Power to the Bonneville Power Administration, FY 2016-2017.

    Filed Date: 8/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150812-5109.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2423-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 1890R4 Westar Energy, Inc. (Moran) NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150812-5110.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2424-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 1892R4 Westar Energy, Inc. (Robinson) NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150812-5112.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF15-968-000.

    Applicants: Cubit Power One Inc.

    Description: Form 556 of Cubit Power One Inc.

    Filed Date: 8/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150812-5053.

    Comments Due: None Applicable.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20424 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2609-044] Curtis/Palmer Hydroelectric Company, LP; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Application to amend license.

    b. Project No.: 2609-044.

    c. Date Filed: July 29, 2015.

    d. Applicant: Curtis/Palmer Hydroelectric Company, LP.

    e. Name of Project: Curtis/Palmer Falls Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The project is located on the Hudson River in Saratoga and Warren counties, New York.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Steve Denton, Curtis/Palmer Hydroelectric Company, 15 Pine St., Corinth, NY 12822 (518) 654-6297.

    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Steven Sachs, (202) 502-8666, or [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests, and recommendations is 30 days from the date of issuance of this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-2609-044) on any comments, motions to intervene, protests, or recommendations filed.

    k. Description of Request: The licensee proposes to remove the top section of the forebay spillway at the Palmer Falls dam and replace it with a 4-foot-high, approximately 45-foot-long inflatable rubber dam. The licensee would use the rubber dam as a sluiceway to prevent ice from collecting within the forebay and against the trashracks. The licensee does not propose any changes to normal reservoir operation.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208- 3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading, the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the license amendment. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20465 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project Nos. 2246-063, 2246-058] Notice of Study Plan Meeting; Yuba County Water Agency

    a. Project Name and Number: Yuba River Development Project No. 2246.

    b. Date and Time of Meeting: August 27, 2015; 10 a.m. Pacific Time.

    c. Place: Teleconference; Phone Number: (530) 741-5050; Passcode: 22466422.

    d. FERC Contact: Alan Mitchnick, [email protected] or (202) 502-6074.

    e. Purpose of Meeting: Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA) is in the process of implementing Study 7.11a, Radio Telemetry Study of Spring- and Fall-run Chinook Salmon Migratory Behavior Downstream of Narrows 2 Powerhouse. Pursuant to the approved study plan, YCWA wishes to discuss the status of the study's implementation.

    f. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20426 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9932-66-OA] Notification of Public Teleconferences of the Science Advisory Board Radiation Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces two public teleconferences of the Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) to receive a briefing about the agency's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to consider revising the Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations (40 CFR part 190).

    DATES:

    The public teleconferences will be held from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) on the following dates: November 10, 2015, and November 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The teleconferences will be conducted by telephone only.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Any member of the public who wants further information concerning these public teleconferences may contact Mr. Edward Hanlon, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the Radiation Advisory Committee, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at (202) 564-2134 or via email at [email protected] General information concerning the EPA SAB can be found at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the SAB Radiation Advisory Committee will hold two public teleconferences to learn about the agency's ANPRM to consider revising the Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations (40 CFR part 190). The Committee will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

    EPA's Office of Air and Radiation requested an opportunity to brief the SAB Radiation Advisory Committee on the agency's ANPRM to consider revising the Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations (40 CFR part 190), which was released for public review and comment on February 4, 2014 (79 FR 6509). The briefing will help to inform the Committee in preparation for a later consultation, where the SAB will provide early advice for the agency's consideration on technical issues associated with standards for radiation dose to the public from normal operation of nuclear power plants and other uranium fuel cycle facilities. The purpose of the teleconference on November 10, 2015 is for EPA to brief the Committee about the agency's ANPRM and for the public to provide comments for the Committee's consideration regarding the ANPRM. If all oral comments from registered public speakers cannot be accommodated at the November 10, 2015 teleconference, an additional teleconference will be held on November 13, 2015 for that purpose. Additional information about this SAB activity can be found at the following URL http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/40%20CFR%20190?OpenDocument.

    Technical Contacts: Any technical questions concerning EPA's ANPRM to consider revising the Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations (40 CFR part 190) should be directed to Mr. Brian Littleton in the EPA Office of Air and Radiation, by telephone at (202) 343-9216 or by email at [email protected]

    Availability of Teleconference Materials: Prior to the teleconference, the agenda and other materials will be accessible through the calendar link on the blue navigation bar at http://www.epa.gov/sab/. Materials may also be accessed at the URL provided above.

    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA. Interested members of the public may submit relevant information on the topic of this advisory activity, and/or the group conducting the activity, for the SAB to consider during the advisory process. Input from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for SAB committees and panels to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the DFO directly.

    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at the teleconferences will be limited to three minutes. Interested parties wishing to provide comments should contact Mr. Hanlon, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by November 3, 2015, to be placed on the list of public speakers for the teleconference. Written Statements: Written statements will be accepted throughout the advisory process; however, for timely consideration by Committee members, statements should be supplied to the DFO (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by November 3, 2015. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written comments on the Web page for advisory meetings. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted to the SAB Web site. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.

    Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Hanlon at the contact information provided above. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Mr. Hanlon preferably at least ten days prior to the teleconferences to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: August 7, 2015. Thomas H. Brennan, Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20498 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0150; FRL-9932-70-OW] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Establishing No-Discharge Zones (NDZs) Under Clean Water Act § 312 (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency plans to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Establishing No-Discharge Zones (NDZs) Under Clean Water Act § 312 (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1791.07, OMB Control No. 2040-0187) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA solicits public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2015. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0150, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected] or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Virginia Fox-Norse, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, (4504T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-1266; fax number: 202-566-1337; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA solicits comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses). EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: (A) Sewage No-discharge Zones: The need for EPA to obtain information for, or to support, the establishment of no-discharge zones (NDZs) for vessel sewage in state waters stems from CWA sections 312(f)(3), (f)(4)(A), and (f)(4)(B), and implementing regulations at 40 CFR 140.4. No-discharge zones are established to provide greater environmental protection of specified state waters from treated and untreated vessel sewage. This ICR addresses the information requirements associated with the establishment of NDZs for vessel sewage. The information collection activities discussed in this ICR do not require the submission of any confidential information.

    (B) UNDS No-discharge Zones: Under section 312(n) of the Clean Water Act (“Uniform National Discharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed Forces” or “UNDS”) no-discharge zones (“NDZs”) for discharges from Armed Forces vessels may be established by either state prohibition or EPA prohibition following the procedures in 40 CFR part 1700. UNDS also provides that the Governor of any state may petition EPA and the Secretary of Defense to review any determination or standard promulgated under the UNDS program if there is significant new information that could reasonably result in a change to the determination or standard. This ICR discusses the information that is required from a state if it decides (1) to establish a NDZ by state prohibition or (2) to apply for a NDZ by EPA prohibition for the UNDS discharges for which EPA and DOD have determined that it is not reasonable or practicable to require a Marine Pollution Control Device to mitigate adverse effects on the marine environment. 40 CFR 1700.5. The ICR also discusses the information that is required from a state to submit a petition for review of EPA and DOD determinations that it is not reasonable or practicable to require a Marine Pollution Control Device for a particular UNDS discharge identified at 40 CFR 1700.5. NDZs for UNDS discharges that do require a Marine Pollution Control Device will not become applicable until after EPA and DOD promulgate performance standards for such Marine Pollution Control Devices, and after DOD promulgates regulations governing the design, construction, installation and use of Marine Pollution Control Devices to meet achieve the performance standards. The information collection activities discussed in this ICR do not require the submission of any confidential information.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: States.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: The responses to this collection of information are required to obtain the benefit of a sewage NDZ (CWA sections 312(f)(3), (f)(4)(A), and (f)(4)(B), and subsequent regulations at 40 CFR 140.4. The responses to this collection of information are required to obtain the benefit of an UNDS NDZ or a review of an UNDS determination or standard (see 33 U.S.C. 1322(n)).

    Estimated number of respondents: 16 (total).

    Frequency of response: One time.

    Total estimated burden: 2266 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $108,622 (per year), includes $2,300 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in Estimates: EPA expects that the burden hours will stay the same as the current estimate for this ICR extension. Cost estimates will likely remain the same or rise when EPA revises them for this ICR extension because of changes in the state and federal labor costs.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Benita Best-Wong, Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20508 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9932-71-OA] Request for Public Comments on the List of Candidates for EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) Agricultural Science Committee AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites public comments on the list of candidates being considered for appointment to the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) Agricultural Science Committee to provide advice to the chartered SAB regarding matters referred to the SAB that will have a significant direct impact on farming and agriculture-related industries.

    DATES:

    Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than September 9, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Members of the public wishing to obtain further information may contact Ms. Stephanie Sanzone, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the committee, by email at [email protected] or by telephone at 202-564-2067.

    Background: The chartered SAB (the Board) was established in 1978 by the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act (42 U.S.C. 4365) to provide independent advice to the Administrator on general scientific and technical matters underlying the Agency's policies and actions. Members of the SAB and its subcommittees constitute a distinguished body of non-EPA scientists, engineers, economists, and social scientists that are nationally and internationally recognized experts in their respective fields. Members are appointed by the EPA Administrator, generally for a period of three years. The SAB conducts business in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and related regulations. Generally, SAB meetings are announced in the Federal Register, conducted in public view, and provide opportunities for public input during deliberations. All the work of the SAB subcommittees is performed under the direction of the Board. The chartered Board provides strategic advice to the EPA Administrator on a variety of EPA science and research programs and reviews and approves all SAB subcommittee and panel reports. Additional information about the SAB may be found at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

    The SAB Staff Office previously announced (79 FR 73304-73305, December 10, 2014) that pursuant to section 12307 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 133-79), the EPA is establishing a new agriculture-related standing committee of the SAB. On January 26, 2015, the SAB Staff Office announced (80 FR 2965-3966) an extension to the nomination period through March 30, 2015. The SAB Agricultural Science Committee will provide advice to the chartered SAB on matters referred to the Board that EPA and the Board, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, determine will have a significant direct impact on farming and agriculture-related industries. The SAB Staff Office sought public nominations of experts with demonstrated expertise in agriculture-related sciences, including: Agricultural economics, including valuation of ecosystem goods and services; agricultural chemistry; agricultural engineering; agronomy, including soil science; aquaculture science; biofuels engineering; biotechnology; crop and animal science; environmental chemistry; forestry; and hydrology. The SAB Staff Office hereby invites public comments on the list of candidates under consideration for the SAB Agricultural Science Committee, available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebAll/nominationcommittee?OpenDocument.

    How To Submit Comments: Any interested person or organization may submit comments to Ms. Sanzone, Designated Federal Officer, at the contact information provided above no later than September 9, 2015. Email is the preferred mode of receipt. Please be advised that public comments are subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Dated: August 7, 2015. Thomas H. Brennan, Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20511 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL 9932-75-OECA] Applicability Determination Index (ADI) Database System Recent Posting: Applicability Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory Interpretations Pertaining to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that EPA has made under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); and/or the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    An electronic copy of each complete document posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) database system is available on the Internet through the Resources and Guidance Documents for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act Compliance Monitoring Web site under “Air” at: http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-assistance. The letters and memoranda on the ADI may be located by control number, date, author, subpart, or subject search. For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact Maria Malave at EPA by phone at: (202) 564-7027, or by email at: [email protected] For technical questions about individual applicability determinations or monitoring decisions, refer to the contact person identified in the individual documents, or in the absence of a contact person, refer to the author of the document.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The General Provisions of the NSPS in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 60 and the General Provisions of the NESHAP in 40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as applicability determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the NESHAP part 63 regulations [which include Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards and/or Generally Available Control Technology (GACT) standards] and Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) contain no specific regulatory provision providing that sources may request applicability determinations, EPA also responds to written inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 and section 111(d) programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping that is different from the promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as alternative monitoring decisions. Furthermore, EPA responds to written inquiries about the broad range of NSPS and NESHAP regulatory requirements as they pertain to a whole source category. These inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type of sources to which the regulation applies, or to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements contained in the regulation. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as regulatory interpretations. EPA currently compiles EPA-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations, and posts them to the ADI on a quarterly basis. In addition, the ADI contains EPA-issued responses to requests pursuant to the stratospheric ozone regulations, contained in 40 CFR part 82. The ADI is an electronic index on the Internet with over one thousand EPA letters and memoranda pertaining to the applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NSPS, NESHAP, and stratospheric ozone regulations. Users can search for letters and memoranda by date, office of issuance, subpart, citation, control number, or by string word searches.

    Today's notice comprises a summary of 42 such documents added to the ADI on August 10, 2015. This notice lists the subject and header of each letter and memorandum, as well as a brief abstract of the letter or memorandum. Complete copies of these documents may be obtained from the ADI on the Internet through the Resources and Guidance Documents for Compliance Assistance page of the Clean Air Act Compliance Monitoring Web site under “Air” at: http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-assistance.

    Summary of Headers and Abstracts

    The following table identifies the database control number for each document posted on the ADI database system on August 10, 2015; the applicable category; the section(s) and/or subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63 (as applicable) addressed in the document; and the title of the document, which provides a brief description of the subject matter.

    We have also included an abstract of each document identified with its control number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely to alert the public to possible items of interest and are not intended as substitutes for the full text of the documents. This notice does not change the status of any document with respect to whether it is “of nationwide scope or effect” for purposes of CAA Sec. 307(b)(1). For example, this notice does not convert an applicability determination for a particular source into a nationwide rule. Neither does it purport to make a previously non-binding document binding.

    ADI Determinations Uploaded on August 10, 2015 Control No. Categories Subparts Title 1400039 NSPS JJJJ Performance Test Waiver for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. 1500001 NSPS JJJJ Test Waiver for Stationary Spark Internal Combustion Engines. 1500004 NSPS WWW Request for Alternative Compliance Timeline for Landfill Gas Extraction Well. 1500005 NSPS WWW Request for Alternative Compliance Timeline for Landfill Gas Extraction. 1500006 NSPS Ja Alternative Monitoring Plan Request for Flare at Refinery and Sulfur Plant. 1500008 NSPS CCCC, EEEE Conditional Exemption for CISWI and OSWI. 1500009 NSPS CCCC Petition to Establish Proposed Operating Limits for an Incinerator. 1500010 NSPS A, Y Request for PM Performance Testing Extension under Force Majeure. 1500011 NSPS EEEE Rural Institutional Waste Incinerator Exemption. 1500012 NSPS EEEE Rural Incinerator Exemption Administrative Correction. 1500013 NSPS EEEE Rural Institutional Waste Incinerator Exemption Denial. 1500015 NSPS EEEE Rural Institutional Waste Incinerator Exemption. 1500016 NSPS EEEE Rural Institutional Waste Incinerator Exemption. 1500017 NSPS JJJJ Test Notice Waiver. 1500018 NSPS JJJJ Test Notice Waiver. 1500019 NSPS EEEE Rural Institutional Waste Incinerator Exemption. 1500020 NSPS Db Request for Alternative to COM Monitoring for Wet Scrubber and ESP. 1500040 NSPS LL Applicability Determination for Operations Depositing Ponded Fine Tailings Material as a By-Product from Historical Ore Mining and Processing Operations. 1500041 NSPS A, LLLL Alternative Monitoring Location for Wet Electrostatic Precipitator Effluent. 1500042 NSPS A, Da, Z Alternative Compliance Monitoring Plan for Opacity and Carbon Monoxide Monitoring from an electric submerged arc furnace. 1500043 NSPS Db Alternative Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting at Vessel Boilers. 1500044 NSPS Dc Request for Alternative Recordkeeping and Reporting for Boilers. 1500045 NSPS Dc Request for Alternative Recordkeeping and Reporting for Boilers. 1500047 NSPS TT Applicability Determination for a Tubing Operation for Coating Metal Wire. 1500048 NSPS OOOO Applicability Determination for Pipeline Stations Storage Vessels. M140017 MACT, Part 63 NESHAP DDDDD Request for Compliance Extension for Boiler MACT. M140018 MACT, Part 63 NESHAP JJJJJJ Test Waiver Denial for Coal-Fired Boilers. M150001 MACT, Part 63 NESHAP ZZZZ Alternative Monitoring Request for Non-Resettable Hour Meter for Stationary Emergency Engines. M150002 MACT, Part 63 NESHAP A, JJJJJJ Compliance Extension for Area Source Coal Fired Boilers. M150003 MACT, Part 63 NESHAP A, ZZZZ Compliance Extension for Area Source Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. M150004 MACT, Part 63 NESHAP A, ZZZZ Compliance Extension for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine. M150005 MACT, Part 63 NESHAP A, ZZZZ Compliance Extension for Power Plant Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. M150006 MACT, Part 63 NESHAP A, ZZZZ Prior Test Data Use for Initial Compliance Demonstration. M150007 MACT, Part 63 NESHAP ZZZZ Applicability Determination for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. M150008 MACT, Part 63 NESHAP ZZZZ Peak Shaving Engine Redesignation to Black Start Engine. M150009 MACT, Part 63 NESHAP A, JJJJJJ Area Source Boiler PM Test Waiver Request. M150018 MACT, Part 63 NESHAP DDDDD, JJJJ, MMMMM, ZZZZ Part 63 Rules and Title V Operating Permit Applicability for Lamination Facility. M150019 MACT, Part 63 NESHAP O Request for Clarification of Annual Performance Test Requirement. M150020 MACT, Part 63 NESHAP UUUUU Applicability Determination for Limited-Use Liquid Oil-Fired Electric Generating Units. M150021 MACT, Part 63 NESHAP LLL Applicability Determination for Cement Finish Mill. Z150001 Part 63 NESHAP JJJJJJ Performance Test Extension and Amendment to Force Majeure. 1500042 NSPS, Part 63 NESHAP Y, DDDD, LLL Applicability Determination under section 111, section 112, and section 129 for Cement Plants. Abstracts Abstract for [1400039]

    Q: Will EPA provide Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) a waiver pursuant to 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4), from the initial performance testing requirement under NSPS Subpart JJJJ for nine of the ten Wartsila 18V50DF dual-fired, lean-burn, 17.1 megawatt (23,250 HP), non-emergency, reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) to be installed at the Eklutna Generation Station in Eklutna, Alaska?

    A: No. EPA finds that MEA has not provided an adequate demonstration that the engines in question will meet the applicable standards, and therefore the EPA is denying MEA's request for a waiver from the initial performance testing for its Wartsila 18V50DF engines. Although the manufacturer's data provided indicates that we can expect that the Wartsila 18V50DF engines may be able to meet the applicable emissions limits in NSPS Subpart JJJJ (if properly installed and operated) conducting a performance test is necessary to provide adequate assurance that an engine is properly installed and operating. MEA may re-submit a request for a waiver of performance tests at its facility once it has information that is sufficient to demonstrate that one or more of the engines, after reaching their maximum production rate, are in compliance with the standard.

    Abstract for [1500001]

    Q: Will EPA approve a waiver from performance testing requirements according to 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4) for six of seven Waukesha units identified as identical and operated as compressor engines at ConocoPhillips Alaska Incorporated's (CPAI) Beluga River Unit (BRU)?

    A: Based on the information provided by CPAI, EPA approves the performance test waiver for the CO and VOC standards, but not for the NOX standards for the next performance testing that is due for six of the seven Waukesha engines. EPA approves the CO and VOC performance testing waiver because CPAI has demonstrated that the engines are identical, they are in the same location, they will be operated and maintained in a similar manner on an ongoing basis, and the expected emissions from the engines are in compliance with applicable limits by a substantial margin. EPA denies the NOX performance test waiver because the margin of compliance for NOX emissions was not sufficient to conclude that untested units would be in compliance with the NOX standards of subpart JJJJ, given the high variability in NOX emissions.

    Abstract for [1500004]

    Q: Does EPA approve Roxana Landfill's request for an alternative timeline of additional sixty (60) days, or until January 25, 2015, to bring Well 191 located in Edwardsville, Illinois, into compliance with 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(ii)(A)(3) under NSPS subpart WWW?

    A: Yes. Based on the information provided by Roxana, EPA approves, pursuant to 40 CFR 60.755(a)(3), the proposed alternative timeline to complete installation of a new vacuum lateral on Well 191 by January 25, 2015 to bring the well into compliance with pressure requirements. Roxana site personnel must review investigative and monitoring data and closely monitor any field conditions that would result in a violation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW.

    Abstract for [1500005]

    Q: Does EPA approve the alternative compliance timeline to complete a dewatering project for landfill gas extraction Well S163R2 at the Waste Management of Illinois, Incorporated. (WMIL) Settler's Hill Recycling and Disposal Facility/Midway facility in Batavia, Illinois under 40 CFR subpart WWW?

    A: Yes. Based on the information provided by WMIL, EPA approves WMIL's proposed alternative compliance timeline to complete a dewatering project on Well S163R2 by June 24, 2014. We understand that WMIL has made efforts to meet the regulatory deadline but was unable to meet it due to the nature of the work involved. Factors including a well depth of 144 feet deep and its location at the center of the landfill. Lack of infrastructure near the well to facilitate dewatering, no electricity near the well, and no means to convey liquid into the facility's condensate/leachate system contributed to the project's delay.

    Abstract for [1500006]

    Q. Does EPA approve the Alternative Monitoring Plan (AMP) request to the sulfur monitoring requirements under 40 CFR 60.107a(e) of NSPS, subpart Ja, for the flare at the Phillips 66 Billings Refinery and Jupiter Sulfur Plant (Jupiter Sulfur) located in Billings, Montana?

    A. Yes. Based on the information provided, EPA conditionally approves Jupiter Sulfur's AMP request for meeting the flare sulfur monitoring requirements. EPA finds the AMP acceptable since flaring does not occur more than four times in any 365-day period and it contains provisions for the monitoring of the rupture discs that are similar to, or the same as, provisions found in § 60.107a(g)(1)-(6) for monitoring the water seal at emergency flares. In addition, Jupiter Sulfur will install a flow meter meeting the requirements of § 60.107a(i) on the flare. The conditions for AMP approval addressing monitoring, corrective actions and recordkeeping requirements are specified in the EPA determination letter.

    Abstract for [1500008]

    Q: Does an incinerator that burns pathological waste at the Kenai Veterinary Hospital in Kenai, Alaska meet the exclusion for pathological waste incineration units in NSPS for Other Solid Waste Incineration Units (OSWI), 40 CFR subpart EEEE, and for Commercial Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (CISWI), subpart CCCC?

    A: Yes. The unit is exempt because it burns 90 percent or more by weight pathological, low-level radioactive, and/or chemotherapeutic waste as defined in 40 CFR 60.2977. EPA will consider the letter submitted by the hospital to constitute the notice that the unit meets the exclusion. Consistent with the regulations, records of materials burned must be kept to demonstrate that the exclusion continues to apply.

    Abstract for [1500009]

    Q: Does the EPA approve the operating limits proposed by Sumitomo Metal Mining Pogo (Pogo) for its small remote solid waste incinerator under NSPS for Commercial Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) units, subpart CCCC at its mine facility near Delta Junction, Alaska?

    A: Yes. EPA accepts Pogo's petition to establish operating limits for the incinerator under subpart CCCC. The petition was submitted 60 days before the initial performance test is scheduled to begin and it meets the criteria in paragraphs (a) through (e) of § 60.2115. The incinerator has no add-on control device and only fires propane as fuel with anticipated feedstocks of solid wastes but not hazardous wastes, which is consistent with 40 CFR 60.2115. Pogo identified the specific parameters to be used, including waste composition and charge rate, charge interval limit, and primary and secondary combustion chamber temperature and burn-time limits. The relationship between these parameters and emissions was provided by Pogo, and upper and/or lower values were proposed. Methods and instrumentation to measure and continuously monitor the operating parameters were presented, which include the installation of an electronic data acquisition system and the calculation of 5-minute rolling average temperatures. Compliance with the minimum temperature limits will be determined using the rolling 5-minute average. A rolling weight will be calculated with an averaging period to be determined based on the results of the initial performance test. The frequency and methods for recalibrating instruments were identified.

    Abstract for [1500010]

    Q: Does EPA approve an extension to the applicable performance test deadlines caused by a force majeure event in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 60.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) for an affected facility located in Alaska, owned and operated by Clear Air Force Station (Clear AFS), that is subject to 40 CPR 60 subpart Y?

    A: No. EPA denies the extension request as it believes that Clear AFS could have taken steps to prevent the circumstances that led to the inability to perform the stack test in a safe manner. As stated in the supporting information you provided to EPA, which was included in a formal request submitted to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), a similar nearby facility (Eielson Air Force Base) had tested in 2011 the same coal at their facility under similar operational conditions and determined that the coal was explosive. The EPA believes that Clear AFS has an obligation (a general duty) to ensure a safe working environment under all conditions at all times and has knowledge and is aware of the nature of all materials under its possession. EPA also believes that Clear AFS neglected to take into safety consideration when making equipment purchase decisions.

    Abstract for [1500011]

    Q: Will EPA exclude the cyclonic burn barrel unit that Lower Kuskokwim School District (LKSD) intends to operate at the Chefornak School in Chefornak, Alaska from the requirements of 40 CFR part 60 subpart EEEE?

    A: Yes. EPA approves LKSD's request. EPA determines that KSD's request was submitted prior to initial startup of the unit, and that the incineration unit meets the criteria for exclusion from subpart EEEE (40 CFR 60.2887(h)(1)-(2)) for rural institutional waste incinerator units. The unit is located more than 50 miles from the boundary of the nearest Metropolitan Statistical Area, and alternative disposal options are not available or are economically infeasible.

    Abstract for [1500012]

    Q1: Will EPA correct the operator and park name operated by and located in the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve for a previously denied exclusion from 40 CFR part 60 subpart EEEE for an incineration unit operating in Port Alsworth, Alaska?

    A1: Yes. EPA determination letter issued to the National Park Service on April 16, 2013 (Refer to ADI Control Number 1500013) applies to the incinerator operated by and located in the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, and not to an incinerator being operated by Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve as erroneously stated in the response.

    Abstract for [1500013]

    Q: Does EPA determine that the institutional waste incineration unit at the National Park in Port Alsworth, Alaska can be excluded from the Part 60 subpart EEEE requirements at 40 CFR 60.2887(h)?

    A: No. EPA determines that the unit is not eligible for this exclusion because the application for an exclusion was not submitted prior to the start-up of the incinerator as required by 40 CFR 60.2887(h)(1). It appears, based on the information provided by the Park, that the unit in question would meet the criteria of being located more than 50 miles from the boundary of the nearest Metropolitan Statistical Area and that alternative disposal options are not available or are economically infeasible. However, subpart EEEE requires that the owner or operator of the incinerator unit must submit, before start-up, an application demonstrating that the unit meets the exclusion criteria. Refer to ADI Control Number 1500012 for a correction to the operator name for the unit.

    Abstract for [1500015]

    Q: Will EPA approve exempted status for a cyclonic burn barrel unit under 40 CFR part 60 subpart EEEE that the Lower Kuskokwim School District (LKSD) intends to operate at the Atmautluak, Alaska school facility to incinerate dewatered sludge from the Atmautluak school wastewater system?

    A: Yes. EPA determines that the incinerator that LKSD intends to operate meets the criteria for exclusion for rural institutional waste incinerators and therefore is approving LKSD's application for exclusion according to 40 CFR 60.2887(h). LKSD submitted this request prior to initial start up of the incinerator as required by 40 CFR 60.2887(h)(1). The LSKD School in Atmautluak is located approximately 284 miles from the boundary of the Anchorage/Matanuska Susitna Metropolitan Statistical Area. Atmautluak is an isolated community with no road access and severely limited barge access. There is no legal and safe disposal site within Atmautluak. Sludge would have to be shipped to Washington or Oregon for disposal and this would be prohibitively expensive.

    Abstract for [1500016]

    Q: Will EPA approve exempted status for a cyclonic burn barrel unit under 40 CFR part 60 subpart EEEE that the Lower Kuskokwim School District (LKSD) intends to operate at the Newtok, Alaska school facility to incinerate dewatered sludge from the Newtok school wastewater system?

    A: Yes. EPA determines that the incinerator that LKSD intends to operate meets the criteria for exclusion for rural institutional waste incinerators and therefore is approving LKSD's application for exclusion according to 40 CFR 60.2887(h). LKSD submitted this request prior to initial start up of the incinerator as required by 40 CFR 60.2887(h)(1). The LSKD School in Newtok is located approximately 360 miles from the boundary of the Anchorage/Matanuska Susitna Metropolitan Statistical Area. Newtok is an isolated community with no road access and severely limited barge access. There is no legal and safe disposal site within Newtok. The community has started a long-term project to move the village to a new location therefore there are no plans to open a permitted landfill at this current location. Sludge would have to be shipped to Washington or Oregon for disposal and this would be prohibitively expensive.

    Abstract for [1500017]

    Q: Will EPA grant a request for a waiver of the 30-day notification required prior to conducting a performance evaluation of a generator under NSPS subpart JJJJ at the Joint Base Elmendorf/Richardson (JBER) Landfill Gas Power Facility in Fairbanks, Alaska pursuant to 40 CFR 60.19(f)(3)?

    A: Yes. Based on information provided by JBER, EPA waives the 30 day notice for performance testing pursuant to 40 CFR 60.l9(f)(3). JBER indicates that the notice is late because it just became aware that the State of Alaska has declined to be delegated authority to implement and enforce NSPS subpart JJJJ.

    Abstract for [1500018]

    Q: Will EPA grant a request for a waiver of the 30-day notification of performance evaluation requirement for a Guascor Model SFGM-560 Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) at Farm Power's new biogas production facility in Tillamook, Oregon pursuant to 40 CFR 60.19(f)(3)?

    A: Yes. Based on information provided by Farm Power, EPA approves this request pursuant to 40 CFR 60.l9(f)(3). Farm Power indicates that the notice is late because it just became aware that the State of Oregon has declined to be delegated authority to implement and enforce NSPS subpart JJJJ.

    Abstract for [1500019]

    Q: Will EPA approve exempted status for a cyclonic burn barrel unit under 40 CFR subpart EEEE that the Lower Kuskokwim School District (LKSD) intends to operate at the Tuntutuliak, Alaska school facility to incinerate dewatered sludge from the Tuntutuliak school wastewater system?

    A: Yes. EPA determines that the incinerator that LKSD intends to operate meets the criteria for exclusion for rural institutional waste incinerators and therefore is approving LKSD's application for exclusion according to 40 CFR 60.2887(h). LKSD submitted this request prior to initial start up of the incinerator as required by 40 CFR 60.2887(h)(1). The LSKD School in Tuntutuliak is located approximately 360 miles from the boundary of the Anchorage/Matanuska Susitna Metropolitan Statistical Area. Tuntutuliak is an isolated community with no road access, and severely limited barge access. Sludge would have to be shipped to Washington or Oregon for disposal and this would be prohibitively expensive.

    Abstract for [1500020]

    Q: Will EPA approve alternative monitoring under 40 CFR 60.13(h)(i)(1) of NSPS subpart Db for the multi-fuel Power Boiler No. 20 at the Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Incorporated facility in Longview, Washington?

    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves alternative monitoring for the multi-fuel boiler to ensure compliance with the state PM limit since moisture from the controls and low stack gas temperature result in interference that makes a continuous opacity monitor (COM) infeasible. Longview's boiler is already subject to a federally enforceable, state imposed, PM emission limit that is more stringent than NSPS subpart Db, and therefore, compliance with the Subpart Db PM limit is met. The conditions for approval are specified in the EPA determination letter.

    Abstract for [1500040]

    Q: Are the operations conducted by Magnetation, LLC, at their facility located near Keewatin, Minnesota, to produce an iron concentrate considered an affected facility and subject to the requirements of NSPS subpart LL?

    A: Yes. EPA determines that the operations conducted by Magnetation, LLC are considered an affected facility and subject to the requirements of NSPS subpart LL because it produces a metallic mineral concentrate and the operations meet the definition of metallic mineral processing plant at 40 CFR 60.381. The definition for “metallic mineral concentrate” does not require that the concentration level be in excess of the historic source ore, and the finished product is higher in concentration than currently available, naturally occurring ore. The tailing material clearly came “from ore,” and the fact that Magnetation's process relies on the previous plant having taken initial steps in concentrating the ore does not exempt your process from acting on material which came from ore. The beneficiation equipment produces a finished product that meets the definition of “metallic mineral concentrate.” Therefore, the equipment produces metallic mineral concentrates from ore.

    Abstract for [1500041]

    Q: Does EPA approve the Mattabassett District Water Pollution Control (Mattabassett) facility's request for an alternative monitoring location for the water flow rate from the wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP) that is used to control pollution from the sewage sludge incinerator at the facility located in Cromwell, CT?

    A: Yes. EPA approves the alternative monitoring location for the water flow from the Mattabassett's WESP unit under 40 CFR part 60 subpart A, section 60.13(i)(4).

    Abstract for [1500042]

    Q1: Does EPA approve Boston Electrometallurgical Corporation's (BEMC's) proposed alternative monitoring to use a triboelectric detector to continuously monitor the relative particulate matter (PM) concentration of the exhaust emitted to the atmosphere from the submerged arc furnace, located at its Woburn, MA ferroalloy production facility, in lieu of a continuous opacity monitoring system to meet 40 CFR 60.264(b)? BEMC proposes to use EPA Reference Method 9 to establish a relationship between opacity and the electrical signal provided by the triboelectric detector.

    A1: Yes. EPA approves the use of baghouse leak monitoring for the furnace meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 60.48(o)(4)(i) through (v), as they relate to the use of its triboelectric sensor for opacity monitoring, including the development and submittal of a monitoring plan for approval.

    Q2: Does EPA approve BEMC's proposed alternative to install and operate a continuous CO monitoring system (i.e., an Infrared Industries, IR-208 Gas Analyzer) that will sample the exhaust once every ten minutes in order to meet 40 CFR 60.263(a)?

    A2: Yes. EPA approves BEMC's alternative monitoring to use the gas analyzer for measuring CO continuously in conjunction with other process parameters, such as temperature and flow, to ensure proper operating conditions. In addition, BEMC would have the flexibility to monitor CO periodically at other portions of the processes, e.g. furnace outlet.

    Abstract for [1500043]

    Q1: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge LLC's (Northeast Gateway's) proposed use of Method 22 in lieu of Method 9 for opacity observations to comply with 40 CFR 60.43b for each liquid natural gas regasification (LNGR) vessels that have boilers subject to NSPS subpart Db for the Northeast Gateway Port off the coast of Massachusetts?

    A1: EPA finds that Northeast Gateway's request to use Method 22 is unnecessary because Northwest Gateway LLC only burns oil during startup and the existing NSPS includes a provision, 40 CFR 60.43b(g), providing that PM and opacity limits in that NSPS do not apply during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.

    Q2: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposed waiver request of the 30 operating day NOX performance test requirement in 40 CFR 60.46b(e)?

    A2: EPA is unable to grant a waiver at this time because Northeast Gateway has not yet demonstrated compliance by other means. However, demonstration of compliance with the more stringent Northeast Gateway air permit NOX limit through a performance test, combined with data collected with a certified NOX monitor, may adequately demonstrate compliance with the Subpart Db NOX emission limit without requiring a Subpart Db 30 day performance test.

    Q3: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposed alternative to the 30-day rolling average required by 40 CFR 60.44b(i), where compliance would be demonstrated each calendar month, regardless of the number of operating hours that fall within a given calendar month?

    A3: EPA finds that the proposed waiver of the 30-day averaging period is unnecessary because the affected boilers at the Northeast Gateway Port are below 250 MMBtu, and burn only natural gas and distillate oil.

    Q4: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposal to use Method 22 in lieu of Method 9 for opacity observations under 40 CFR 60.48b?

    A4: EPA finds that Method 9 observations will not be necessary under 40 CFR 60.48b since, under the permit, oil will be fired only during start-up periods.

    Q5: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposal to modify the data requirements for NOX monitoring found at 40 CFR 60.48b(f)?

    A5: Yes. EPA approves Northeast Gateway's proposed criteria that require valid NOX data for 75 percent of the operating hours that occur in each calendar month because the proposed data requirement will be more stringent than those at 40 CFR 60.48b(f).

    Q6: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's request to waive all requirements under 40 CFR 60.49b(g) that refer to 30-day NOX averages and instead be calculated on a calendar-month average basis?

    A6: No. EPA does not grant the request to waive the 30-day NOX average requirement in lieu of a calendar month approach. EPA requires that when compliance must be demonstrated, it shall be demonstrated consistent with the 30-day regulatory requirement. Similarly, requirements for excess emission reports in 40 CFR 60.48b(h) based on 30-day NOX averages apply.

    Q7: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's request to perform periodic quality assurance (QA) testing required by the Part 60 appendices while vessels are not moored at the Northeast Gateway Port?

    A7: EPA will allow QA testing to be conducted while vessels are not moored at the Northeast Gateway Port if the testing is conducted in accordance with a test protocol and schedule approved by EPA.

    Q8: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposal to perform a Relative Accuracy Audit (RAA) using three 60 minute runs in lieu of conducting the nine 21 minute runs of a RATA as required by Appendix F of Part 60?

    A8: No. EPA does not approve this request because the nine run relative accuracy test audits (RATA) test are necessary to provide a statistically significant data set with which to certify the CEMS.

    Q9: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's request that the RATA test frequency be reduced to initial performance testing and at least once every 5 years thereafter as required by Appendix F of Part 60?

    A9: No. EPA does not approve this request. The RATAs must be conducted once every four calendar quarters, or upon the next visit for each vessel that has visited the Northeast Gateway Port after the previous successful RATA, if more than four calendar quarters have passed since that vessel's last successful RATA.

    Q10: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposal that cylinder gas audits (CGAs) required by Appendix F of Part 60 be performed once per calendar quarter, or upon the next visit of a vessel to the Northeast Gateway Port after the previous CGA, if more than one calendar quarter has passed since that vessel's last visit to the Northeast Gateway Port?

    A10: Yes. EPA approves the proposed CGA schedule.

    Q11: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposal to modify the 7 day calibration drift test requirement in Performance Specification 2 (“PS2”) of Part 60 Appendix B?

    A11: No. EPA does not approve this modification. However, as stated in A7 above, EPA is willing to provide some flexibility in allowing the drift test to be conducted when the LNGRV is not moored at the facility.

    Q12: Does EPA approve Northeast Gateway's proposal to waive the retrospective invalidation of data for CD checks exceeding four times the specification and instead consider the “out of control” period only to apply to data after a CD check that exceeds four times the drift specification?

    A12: No. EPA does not approve this request for waiver. Procedure 1 in Appendix F of 40 CFR part 60 defines the out of control period as beginning with the completion of the fifth consecutive daily calibration drift check that exceeds twice the drift specification (2.5 percent of span), or with the completion of the last daily CD check preceding a CD check that exceeds four times the drift specification.

    Abstract for [1500044]

    Q1: Does EPA approve Phillips Academy's (Phillips') request to track actual monthly oil usage under 40 CFR 60.48c(g)(1) when natural gas supplies are interrupted to its boilers at Phillips' facility in Andover, Massachusetts? Phillips currently operates three dual-fuel capable boilers with input capacities of 40.79 MMBtu/hr, which are subject to NSPS subpart Dc and other applicable Massachusetts permit requirements. The facility is currently required to maintain daily records of fuel consumption.

    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves a decrease in fuel usage recordkeeping from daily to monthly records for Phillips' boilers if the facility uses natural gas as the primary fuel and distillate oil with a sulfur content no greater than 0.5 percent as the back-up fuel.

    Q2: Does EPA approve Phillips' request to submit annual reports to EPA under 40 CFR 60.48c(j), instead of semiannual reports?

    A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves a decrease in the reporting frequency under subpart Dc based on Phillips' records that the facility has operated exclusively on natural gas for the past eight years, with the exception of limited operation on oil with a with a sulfur content no greater than 0.5 percent for periodic testing and maintenance. If Phillips' 30-day rolling average sulfur content of the fuel exceeds 0.5%, the facility must immediately resume daily fuel use record keeping.

    Abstract for [1500045]

    Q1: Does EPA approve the University of Massachusetts Lowell's (UMASS Lowell's) request to track actual monthly, instead of daily, oil usage under 40 CFR 60.48c(g)(1) when natural gas supplies are interrupted to its dual-fuel boilers subject to NSPS subpart Dc at its Lowell, Massachusetts facility?

    A1: Yes. EPA conditionally approves a decrease in the reporting frequency for the boilers based on the facility's records that UMASS Lowell's has operated using natural gas as the primary fuel and distillate oil with a sulfur content no greater than 0.5 percent as the back-up fuel.

    Q2: Does EPA approve UMASS Lowell's request to submit annual reports under 40 CFR 60.48c(j), instead of on a semi-annual basis?

    A2: Yes. EPA conditionally approves a decrease in the reporting frequency under 40 CFR part 60 subpart Dc based on UMASS Lowell' records that the facility operates almost exclusively on natural gas, with the exception of when natural gas supplies were interrupted.

    Abstract for [1500047]

    Q: Is the new tube manufacturing operation at Elektrisola Incorporated's Boscawen, New Hampshire facility subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart TT?

    A: No. Based on the information provided by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES), EPA determines that Elektrisola's new tubing operation does not meet the definition of metal coil surface coating operation in section 60.461 because it is applying an organic coating to metal wire, rather than a metal strip. Therefore, Elektrisola's operation is not subject to NSPS subpart TT.

    Abstract for [1500048]

    Q: Are JP Energy's pipeline station storage vessels at several locations in Kansas subject to NSPS subpart OOOO?

    A: Yes. EPA determines that the storage vessels are located in the “oil production segment” and are affected facilities subject to NSPS subpart OOOO. The operations described by JP Energy, which transfer the oil from the wellhead tank loaded on a truck, and transported to another storage vessel prior to the pipeline (emphasis added), are transfer operations prior to the pipeline; as such, they are within the “oil production segment” per 40 CFR 60.5365(d) definition. Therefore, the storage vessels in question meet the criteria for storage vessels affected facility at 40 CFR 60.5365(e).

    Abstract for [M140017]

    Q: Will EPA approve a one-year compliance extension for the Power Boiler (PB-7) under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD at the RockTenn CP, LLC's pulp and paperboard mill in Tacoma, Washington (Tacoma Mill)?

    A: No. EPA determines that although Tacoma Mill identified various potential control technology options, specific controls were not clearly identified, which is a criteria under 40 CFR 63.6(i)(6)(i)(A) for approval of an extension of the compliance deadline.

    Abstract for [M140018]

    Q: Will EPA grant an initial performance testing waiver for Aurora Energy, LLC's (Aurora) two coal fired boilers, Emission Units (EUs) 5 and 6, which are identical in design and manufacture to EU4, at the Chena Power Plant in Fairbanks, Alaska?

    A: No. Based on the information provided, EPA denies Aurora's request for a waiver from the Part 63 subpart JJJJJJ initial performance testing for EUs 5 and 6. EPA determines that insufficient information has been provided to support a conclusion that EUs 4, 5, and 6 are identical, and have been operated and maintained in a similar manner necessary to support a waiver request. The age of the boilers makes it less likely they may be identical, which appears to be the case for EU 6 based on the nameplate photos. Additionally, there has been no historical test data submitted to demonstrate low variability in emissions over time. The fuel, coal, has also not been demonstrated to have low variability over time.

    Abstract for [M150001]

    Q: Will EPA approve an alternative to the monitoring requirement for installation of a non-resettable hour meter for the approximately 74 existing stationary emergency engines subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ, the NESHAP for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, which are operated by BP Exploration Alaska (BPXA) on the North Slope of Alaska?

    A: No. EPA determines that the alternative monitoring approach is not acceptable because the automated engine hour tracking system in use by BPXA is not sufficient on its own to meet the rule requirement of 40 CFR 63.6625(f) since it is not “non-resettable.” Since BPXA can adjust the automated system hour log, it would not be “non-resettable” as required by the NESHAP subpart ZZZZ.

    Abstract for [M150002]

    Q: Will EPA grant a one year extension to the compliance deadline for four coal-fired boilers subject to the Area Source NESHAP for boilers, subpart JJJJJJ, located at the Pacific Air Forces, Eielson Air Force Based Central Heat and Power Plant in Eielson, Alaska?

    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the one year extension to the compliance deadline for carbon monoxide (CO). EPA determines that additional time is warranted due to the short construction season in Alaska, uncertainty regarding the final rule requirements due to reconsideration amendments, and government procurement procedures. Approval is conditioned upon Eielson complying with the applicable emission and operating limits and compliance demonstration procedures by March 21, 2015; meeting interim compliance deadlines specified in the approval letter; and meeting tune-up requirements that are required of boilers below 10 MMBTU/hr during the time period while the compliance extension applies.

    Abstract for [M150003]

    Q: Will EPA grant a one year compliance extension to Hilcorp Alaska for five stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) subject to NESHAP subpart ZZZZ, which are located on the Anna, Dillon, and Monopod Platforms in Alaska's Cook Inlet region?

    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the one-year extension to the compliance deadline for all three platforms that are area sources. EPA determines that additional time is warranted because of the short construction season in Alaska, uncertainty regarding the final rule requirements due to reconsideration of the regulation, and difficulties in procuring the control equipment due to increased demand throughout the industry as the compliance deadline approaches. Approval is conditioned on Hilcorp complying with the applicable equipment standards, catalyst installation and compliance demonstration procedures by October 19, 2014; meeting specified interim compliance deadlines; and complying with the work or management practices for remote stationary RICE by October 19, 2013.

    Abstract for [M150004]

    Q: Will EPA grant a one year extension to the compliance deadline to Hilcorp Alaska for a stationary reciprocating internal combustion engine (RICE) subject to the NESHAP for RICE, 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ, which is located on the Falls Creek Pad in Alaska's South Kenai region?

    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the one-year extension to the compliance deadline for the unit that is not a remote stationary RICE located at an area source facility. EPA determines that additional time is warranted because of the short construction season in Alaska, uncertainty regarding the final rule requirements due to reconsideration of the regulation, and difficulties in procuring the control equipment due to increased demand throughout the industry as the compliance deadline approaches. Approval is conditioned upon Hilcorp complying with the applicable equipment standards, catalyst installation and compliance demonstration procedures by October 19, 2014; meeting interim compliance deadlines specified in the approval letter; and complying with the work or management practices for remote stationary RICE by October 19, 2013.

    Abstract for [M150005]

    Q: Will EPA grant a one-year compliance extension for two stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) subject to NESHAP subpart ZZZZ, which are located at the North Slope Borough (NSB) Nuiqsut Power Plant in Barrow, Alaska?

    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the one-year extension to the compliance deadline for the two existing gas-fired spark ignition units that are not remote stationary RICE and that operate more than 24 hours per calendar year at an area source facility. EPA determines that additional time is warranted because of the short construction season in Alaska, uncertainty regarding the final rule requirements due to reconsideration of the regulation, funding cycles for municipalities, and difficulties in procuring the control equipment due to increased demand throughout the industry as the compliance deadline approaches. Approval is conditioned on NSB complying with the applicable equipment standards, catalyst installation and compliance demonstration procedures by October 19, 2014; meeting specified interim compliance deadlines; and complying with the work or management practices for remote stationary RICE by October 19, 2013.

    Abstract for [M150006]

    Q: Will EPA accept a 2009 performance test as the initial performance test to demonstrate compliance for a stationary reciprocating internal combustion engine (RICE) subject to the NESHAP subpart ZZZZ at and located at Washington State University (WSU) in Pullman, Washington?

    A: No. EPA does not approve the use of the 2009 performance test data to serve as the initial performance test for the RICE unit because a prior test can only be used if it is not older than two years pursuant to 40 CFR 63.6612(b)(2). Therefore, an initial test must be conducted within 180 days after the compliance date, by October 30, 2013.

    Abstract for [M150007]

    Q: Does EPA determine that engines located at the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) facility near Gakona, Alaska are subject to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) at 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ? The facility is owned by the Air Force and operated by Marsh Creek, LLC through the Office of Naval Research.

    A: Yes. EPA determines that the engines, as described, are RICE and therefore subject to Part 63 subpart ZZZZ. The engines would be required to meet the applicable numerical emission limitations detailed in Table 2d and applicable operating limitations in Table 2b of NESHAP subpart ZZZZ for the type of existing stationary engine located at area sources of HAP, as detailed in the EPA determination letter.

    Abstract for [M150008]

    Q: Can the Eielson Air Force Base's existing compression ignition, 2-stroke, greater than 500 horsepower, Electromotive Diesel (EMD) engine installed in 1987 at the Base's Central Heat and Power Plant be designated as a black start engine exclusively and therefore subject to the corresponding requirements for that type of engine if the EMD engine is no longer used for any peak shaving?

    A: Yes. EPA is responding with guidance to clarify that if the engine subject to 40 CFR part 63 subpart ZZZZ is not being used for peak shaving after the May 3, 2013 compliance date for the engine, and the engine meets the definition of a black start engine, it is subject to the requirements under NESHAP subpart ZZZZ for a black start engine.

    Abstract for [M150009]

    Q1: Will EPA approve a like for like waiver from the initial and all subsequent particulate matter (PM) tests according to the provisions under 40 CFR 63.7(e)(2)(iv) and 63.7(h) for the Moses Lake Industries (MLI) boiler located in Moses Lake, Washington?

    A1: No. EPA determines that the information used to estimate the emissions is not from a boiler unit that is located at the same facility as the unit in question. There is no assurance that the tested unit was operated and maintained in a similar manner as the unit in question.

    Q2: In case EPA is unable to grant the waiver, does EPA accept a source test plan and notification that MLI also provided in its submittal dated December 8th, 2011, stating that that they intend to conduct a PM source test on February 13th, 2012?

    A2: Yes. EPA accepts the previously submitted test plan and notification in question to meet the general provision source test requirements from section 63.7(b) to notify EPA at least 60 days in advance of a source test.

    Abstract for [M150018]

    Q1: Can EPA clarify the applicability for the NESHAP for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD; the NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations, 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM; the NESHAP for Reciprocating Internal Combustion !Engines, 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ; and the NESHAP for Paper and Other Web Coating, 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ for Shawmut's flexible substrate lamination facility located in West Bridgewater, MA if the facility is now an area source?

    A1: EPA determines that Shawmut is no longer subject to 40 CFR part 63 subparts JJJJ, MMMMM, and DDDDD. Shawmut is no longer subject to NESHAP subpart JJJJ because the three adhesive laminators (EUI) are permanently decommissioned. Shawmut is not subject to NESHAP subpart MMMMM because the facility ceased to be a major HAP source before becoming subject to any substantive subpart MMMMM requirements. Shawmut is not subject to NESHAP subpart DDDDD for its boiler and two process heaters (EU3) because EPA allows Shawmut to become an area source of HAP before January 2014, the first substantive rule compliance date. Shawmut's existing spark ignition engine is subject to NESHAP subpart ZZZZ as an area source of HAP because Shawmut became an area source of HAP before the first compliance date of October 19, 2013, but subpart ZZZZ does not require area sources of HAP to obtain a Title V operating permit.

    Q2: Would Shawmut facility be required to maintain its Title V operating permit because it is no longer a major source?

    A2: No. EPA determines that Shawmut is no longer subject to the requirements of Title V operating permits based on applicability of these NESHAP subparts as an area source.

    Abstract for [M150019]

    Q: Can EPA clarify the annual performance test deadline for Covidien's ethylene oxide sterilization facility located in North Haven, Connecticut?

    A: EPA is clarifying that after the initial performance test, subsequent annual testing pursuant 40 CFR 63.363(b)(4)(i) must be conducted within 11 to 13 calendar months after the previous test.

    Abstract for [M150020]

    Q: Does a dual-fuel steam boiler (Unit 1) at PSEG New Haven Harbor Station in New Haven, Connecticut meet the definition of a limited-use liquid oil-fired electric generating unit in 40 CFR part 63 subpart UUUUU?

    A: Yes. Based on the information provided, EPA determines that Unit 1 at PSEG New Haven Harbor Station meets the definition of a limited-use liquid oil-fired electric generating unit in 40 CFR part 63 subpart UUUUU.

    Abstract for [M150021]

    Q1: Will the addition of heaters to Dragon Products Company's existing finish mill in Thomaston, Maine subject the finish mill to requirements for raw material dryers in NESHAP for Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry at 40 CFR part 63 subpart LLL?

    A1: No. EPA determines that the Dragon Products' finish mill is not an affected source under NESHAP subpart LLL because it is processing granulated slag, and is not grinding clinker or blending the slag with clinker.

    Q2: Will Dragon Products' proposed finished material dryer be subject to subpart LLL?

    A2: No. Based on the information submitted by Dragon Products, EPA determines that the proposed dryer is not an affected source under NESHAP subpart LLL because the raw material dryer would only be used to dry slag a product used in concrete and not used to dry a material for use in the production of Portland cement. This determination is revising a previously issued determination on the applicability of NESHAP subpart to the dryer issued April 8, 2014.

    Abstract for [Z150001]

    Q: Will the EPA determine that an amendment to Aurora Energy's September 26, 2014 determination is warranted, to provide an additional compliance extension for the performance testing deadline for three area source coal fired boilers (Emission Units (EUs) 4, 5, and 6) under NESHAP subpart JJJJJJ at the Chena Power Plant?

    A: Yes. EPA determines that extending the NESHAP subpart JJJJJJ performance test deadline until January 31, 2015, will provide for time to complete the repair and installation and ensure that TG #1 is fully operational and enable a representative test to be conducted on the boilers.

    Abstract for [1500052]

    Q1: Argos requests clarification of which emissions standards (40 CFR part 63 Subpart LLL—The National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (PC NESHAP); 40 CFR part 60 Subpart Y—New Source Performance Standards for Coal Preparation and Processing Plants (subpart Y); and 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD—“Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units” (subpart DDDD”) apply to the emissions coming from the PC Coal Mill at the Harleyville Cement Plant located in Harleyville, SC, that are combined with the CISWI kiln emissions, where the CISWI kiln provides heat for drying the coal, before being emitted directly to the atmosphere?

    A1: Based on the information provided by Argos, EPA made an analysis of the standards that would apply to the Harleyville PC Coal Mill. EPA determines that the Harleyville PC Coal Mill is subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 60 subpart Y, specifically the standards for thermal dryers at section 60.252(a), because the thermal dryer is a thermal dryer per section § 60.251(r) (1) and is thus subject to the provisions in § 60.251, § 60.252(a), § 60.255(a), and § 60.256(a). When emissions from the thermal dryer (i.e., the affected facility) at the PC coal mill are combined with emissions from the CISWI kiln subject to emissions limits in subpart DDDD, the emissions exiting from the PC Coal Mill thermal dryer are not exempt from the standards in section § 60.252(a). Neither § 60.251(j) nor § 60.252(c) create an exemption from these requirements. We do not believe that any difference between the definition of kiln under subpart DDDD and the PC NESHAP precludes application of the subpart DDDD standards to the waste-burning kiln emissions that are routed through the PC Coal Mill and emitted out of stack 2. Since the kiln is an existing CISWI unit, the subpart DDDD standards apply to the emissions coming from the waste-burning kiln whether or not those emissions are routed to another process before being emitted out of stack 2.

    Q2. Is the Harleyville clinker cooler an affected facility under the PC NESHAP?

    A2. Yes. EPA determines that the affected facility, in part, is each clinker cooler at any Portland cement plant according to § 63.1340(b)(2) (“What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?”). Information provided by Argos demonstrates that the clinker cooler meets the definition of clinker cooler at § 63.1341. Therefore, the clinker cooler is an affected facility under the PC NESHAP.

    Q3. Which emissions standards (PC NESHAP, subpart Y, and/or subpart DDDD) apply to the emissions coming from the Harleyvill Kiln Coal Mill that are combined with the CISWI kiln emissions, where the CISWI kiln provides heat for drying the coal, before discharging to the atmosphere after co-mingling with the clinker cooler exhaust?

    A3. Based on the description provided in Argos' letter, the Harleyville Kiln Coal Mill is a thermal dryer within the meaning of 60.251(r)(1) and thus, for the reasons explained in response to question 1, above, EPA determines it is subject to the applicable requirements of subpart Y in § 60.251, § 60.252(a), § 60.255(a), and § 60.256(a). Regarding PC NESHAP and subpart DDDD, for the reasons discussed in the response to question 1 we maintain that the performance standards for the emissions from CISWI waste burning kilns apply when and where they are emitted to the atmosphere. And, for the reasons stated in response to Question 2, above, we also believe that the clinker cooler is an affected facility under the PC NESHAP and is subject to the emissions standards for clinker coolers, therein. Application of the more stringent emission limits to the combined emissions is necessary to assure compliance with each applicable standard.

    Q4: Can the PC NESHAP requirements for in-line coal mills be applied to the PC Coal Mill and the Kiln Coal Mill at Harleyville, independent of the PC NESHAP applicability to the kiln?

    A4: No. Based on the construction date of the kiln provided by Argos, EPA determines that the emissions guidelines established under subpart DDDD, implemented through a state or federal plan (as applicable), will apply unless the waste-burning kiln ceases burning solid waste at least 6 months prior to the CISWI part DDDD compliance date. Therefore, the kiln is not subject to the PC NESHAP and instead it is subject to subpart DDDD. Coal mills are not subject to the requirements of the PC NESHAP if the kiln is not a PC NESHAP kiln affected facility in accordance with section § 63.1340(b)(1).

    Q5: If the PC NESHAP requirements for the kiln (which includes the coal mills) are not applicable, are the emissions from the Harleyville coal mills only subject to the subpart Y concentration and opacity standards?

    A5: No. The kiln emissions are routed through the coal mills so the subpart DDDD requirements will apply to the emissions exiting the coal mills, in addition to the subpart Y requirements.

    Q6: Do the requirements of Subpart DDDD apply to the Harleyville CISWI kiln emissions routed through the in-line coal mills (i.e. the PC Coal Mill and the Kiln Coal Mill) associated with the waste burning kiln at the mills that were in place prior to April 2008?

    A6: Yes. Any re-routing or commingling of CISWI kiln emissions must not result in uncontrolled emissions directly to the atmosphere. We interpret subpart DDDD (or NSPS CCCC, when applicable) to continue to apply to all of the CISWI waste-burning kiln emissions, even if those emissions are routed through an in-line coal mill or other device prior to exhaust to the atmosphere. Therefore, regardless of the disposition of in-line coal mills as part of the waste burning kiln, the subpart DDDD standards applicable to waste-burning kilns apply to the emissions of the Harleyville kiln when and where they are emitted to the atmosphere.

    Q7. Which emissions standards (subpart Y, PC NESHAP and/or subpart DDDD) apply to the emissions from stack 2 at the Roberta Cement Plant located in Calera, Alabama, when the CISWI waste-burning kiln emissions are routed through the coal mill and used to provide heat for drying of the coal before being emitted to the atmosphere?

    A7: Based on the information provided by Argos, EPA determines that the Roberta coal mill is a thermal dryer within the meaning of § 60.251(r)(1) and is subject to the provisions in § 60.251, § 60.252(a), § 60.255(a), and § 60.256(a) of subpart Y.

    Q8: Which emissions standards apply to the emissions from stack 1 at the Roberta Cement Plant located in Calera, Alabama, wherein the clinker cooler emissions are combined with the kiln emissions and sent to the raw mill to provide heat for drying before being emitted to the atmosphere?

    A9: Argos's letter acknowledges that the Roberta in-line kiln/raw mill is a subpart DDDD affected facility. Also, for the same reasons as discussed in the response to Question 2 for Harleyville Cement Plant, the Roberta clinker cooler is an affected facility under the PC NESHAP. Argos must either comply with the most stringent standard applicable to the various emissions streams or establish a mechanism to apportion emissions to the various operations and seek an alternative methodology for determining compliance under section 60.8(b).

    Dated: July 10, 2015. Edward J. Messina, Director, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20514 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0955; FRL-9930-59] Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces EPA's order for cancellation of certain pesticide products, identified in Table 1, Unit II, which were voluntarily deleted by the registrant and accepted by the Agency, pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This cancellation order follows a March 13, 2013 Federal Register, Notice of Receipt of Request from the registrant listed in Table 2 of Unit II to voluntarily cancel these product registrations. In the March 13, 2013 Notice, EPA indicated that it would issue an order implementing the cancellation of the subject products, unless the Agency received substantive comments within the 30-day comment period that would merit its further review of these requests, or unless the registrant withdrew their request. The Agency did not receive any comments on the notice. Further, the registrant did not withdraw their request. Accordingly, EPA hereby issues in this notice a cancellation order granting the requested cancellations. Any distribution, sale, or use of the products subject to this cancellation order is permitted only in accordance with the terms of this order, including any existing stocks provisions.

    DATES:

    The cancellations are effective August 19, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Caitlin Newcamp, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0325; 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 environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. 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. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0955, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    This notice announces the cancellation, as requested by the registrant, of products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 1—Product Cancellations EPA Registration No. Product name Chemical name 8845-39 Rid-A-Rat and Mouse Killer Warfarin. 8845-125 Hot Shot Sudden Death Brand Mouse Killer Bromethalin. 8845-126 Hot Shot Sudden Death Brand Rat Killer 1 Bromethalin. 8845-127 Hot Shot Sudden Death Brand Mouse and Rat Killer Bromethalin. 8845-128 Hot Shot Sudden Death Brand Mouse Killer Bait Station Bromethalin.

    Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all the registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 2—Registrants of Cancelled Products EPA Company No. Company name and address 8845 Spectrum Group, A Division of United Industries, 1 Rider Trail Plaza Drive, Suite 300, Earth City, MO 63045. III. Summary of Public Comments Received and Agency Response to Comments

    During the public comment period provided, EPA received no comments in response to the March 13, 2013 Federal Register (78 FR 15949) (FRL-9379-4) notice announcing the Agency's receipt of the request for voluntary cancellation of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II.

    IV. Cancellation Order

    Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)), EPA hereby approves the requested cancellation of the registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II are canceled. The effective date of the cancellations that are the subject of this notice is August 19, 2015. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II in a manner inconsistent with any of the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VI will be a violation of FIFRA.

    V. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter, following the public comment period, the EPA Administrator may approve such a request. The notice of receipt for this action was published for comment in the Federal Register of March 13, 2013 (78 FR 15949). The comment period closed on April 12, 2013.

    VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of canceled pesticide products that are in the United States and that were appropriately packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of cancellation of the underlying registration. The existing stocks provisions for the products subject to this order are as follows.

    The registrant is prohibited from selling or distributing existing stocks above as of August 19, 2015, except for export in accordance with FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o), or proper disposal. Persons other than the registrant may sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of products listed above until existing stocks are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled products.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: July 27, 2015. Richard P. Keigwin, Jr., Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20500 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. A copy of the agreement is available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or [email protected]

    Agreement No.: 012301-002.

    Title: Siem Car Carrier Pacific AS/Volkswagen Konzernlogistik GmBH & Co. OHG Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Siem Car Carrier Pacific AS and Volkswagen Konzernlogistik GmBH & Co. OHG.

    Filing Party: Ashley W. Craig, Esq., and Elizabeth K. Lowe, Esq.; Venable LLP; 575 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20004.

    Synopsis: The amendment changes the name of the Volkswagen party to the Agreement.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20489 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-15-15BDJ; Docket No. CDC-2015-0070] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the proposed information collection request entitled “Breast Cancer in Young Women Survey”, which is designed to assess insurance coverage, employment status and out-of-pocket health care expenses among young women diagnosed with breast cancer and to look at the relationship between these variables and treatment decisions.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2015-0070 by any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulation.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note:

    All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Insurance Coverage, Employment Status, and Copayments/Deductibles Faced by Young Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The Education and Awareness Requires Learning Young (EARLY) Act of 2009, which is outlined in section 10413 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, authorizes the CDC to fund research and initiatives that increase knowledge of breast health and breast cancer among women, particularly among those under the age of 40. The EARLY Act along with section 301 of the Public Health Service Act authorizes the CDC to conduct research that will inform the prevention of physical and mental diseases such as breast cancer, and serves as the main basis for this data collection activity.

    Research indicates that young women diagnosed with breast cancer face many barriers accessing high-quality breast cancer care and treatment. These barriers are compounded by the multiple roles that these young women serve in society including parenting young children, developing a career, and completing their education. Treatment decisions can be complicated for young women with breast cancer. Some research indicates that employment status, financial stability, and insurance coverage are variables that affect treatment compliance, access to quality care, and ultimately quality of life for young women with breast cancer. However, to date, no comprehensive assessment has been conducted to examine breast cancer care and treatment for young women.

    CDC propose to address this gap by answering the following two research questions: (1) What are young, female breast cancer survivors experiencing after their diagnosis in terms of (a) continuation of insurance coverage, access to care, and quality of care; (b) changes in employment status after breast cancer diagnosis; and (c) out-of-pocket medical costs? (2) What factors affect young breast cancer survivors' access to comprehensive, high quality care?

    To answer these research questions, CDC is sponsoring a study to collect information from two groups of breast cancer survivors: One randomly drawn from state-based cancer registries (Sample 1), the other a self-selected convenience sample drawn from two advocacy organizations (Sample 2).

    Sample 1 will include up to 1,750 young (diagnosed between the ages of 18 and 39), female breast cancer survivors diagnosed for the first time with breast cancer 12 months before the survey is fielded. Respondents will be recruited through approximately four state-based central cancer registries. These respondents will be asked to complete a mail-in or web-based questionnaire. Self-reported survey data from Sample 1 will be supplemented by data maintained by their state's cancer registry, including information about tumor characteristics, date of diagnosis, and stage. The linked survey and cancer registry data will be used to answer research question #2 (What factors affect young breast cancer survivors' access to comprehensive, high quality care?).

    Sample 2 will include a nation-wide convenience sample of 2,000 female breast cancer survivors diagnosed between the ages of 18 and 49 who are associated with one of two breast cancer advocacy groups (Living Beyond Breast Cancer and Young Survival Coalition). This cohort will exclude individuals from Sample 1 and will not be linked to any other data source.

    Comparing results between Sample 1 and Sample 2 will help us address these additional research questions: (1) How generalizable are the results from the convenience Sample 2? (2) Are there differences between young breast cancer survivors based on the length of time that has elapsed from cancer diagnosis? (3) Do the experiences and barriers faced by women diagnosed between 18 and 39 years of age (Samples 1 and 2) differ from those of women diagnosed between 40 and 44 years of age and 45 and 49 years of age (Sample 2)? This comparison will also help CDC explore whether drawing a convenience sample from survivorship groups will be a methodologically legitimate, less expensive method to recruit respondents for future breast cancer survivor surveys.

    The target number of responses for the overall study will result in up to 3,750 completed surveys. Respondents will be asked to complete a questionnaire, which is estimated to take about 22 minutes. Sample 1 respondents will have the option of completing a hardcopy questionnaire or an online questionnaire. Sample 2 respondents will complete the questionnaire online. Demographic information will be collected from all patients who participate in the study.

    Findings from this study will be used to identify interventions to ameliorate or eliminate existing barriers to treatment so that young women have access to high quality breast cancer treatment and care. Study findings will be disseminated through reports, presentations, and publications. Results will also be used by participating sites, CDC, and other federal agencies to improve care and services provided to young women diagnosed with breast cancer.

    OMB approval is requested for three years and the burden table presents annuitized estimates. CDC's data collection contractor will securely maintain identifiable information from respondents recruited from state registries (Sample 1). No identifiable information will be collected by CDC. Participation is voluntary and there are no costs to respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • (in hours)
  • Sample 1—Breast Cancer survivors included in one of as many as four state registries Breast Cancer in Young Women Survey
  • (Mail or web-based version questionnaire)
  • 583 1 22/60 214
    Sample 2—Breast Cancer survivors associated with advocacy groups Breast Cancer in Young Women Survey
  • (Web-based questionnaire)
  • 667 1 22/60 244
    Total 458
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20479 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-15-15NR] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    Capacity Building Assistance Program: Assessment and Quality Control—New—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The CDC is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to grant a three-year approval to collect data that comprises Health Professional Application for Training (HPAT), the Training Follow-up Instrument, the Technical Assistance (TA) Satisfaction Instrument, and the Capacity Building Assistance (CBA) Key Informant Interview. The purpose of this information collection is to assess the degree to which the CDC's CBA program meets the needs of its consumers in order to enhance its capacity building strategy over time. The HPAT serves as the official application form for training and technical activities conducted by the Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD)/Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) Prevention Training Centers' (PTCs) grantees and the HIV Capacity Building Assistance (CBA providers) grantees funded by the (CDC). The HPAT form is currently approved under OMB Control Number 0920-0995 and expires on October 31, 2016.

    The Prevention Training Centers (PTCs) and CBA providers are funded by CDC/Division of STD Prevention (DSTDP) and Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP) over the five-year period to provide capacity-building services that includes information, training, and technical assistance. CBA services are requested and provided to support health departments, community-based organizations, and healthcare organizations in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of evidence-based HIV prevention interventions and programs; building organizational infrastructure; and community mobilization to decrease stigma and increase HIV testing in high risk communities. Under this project, there will be no duplication of information collection, because it builds on existing, OMB approved data collection activities.

    The PTCs and CBA providers offer classroom and experiential training, web-based training, clinical consultation, and capacity building assistance to maintain and enhance the capacity of healthcare professionals to control and prevent STDs and HIV.

    The CBA service recipients are healthcare professionals such as, physicians, nurses, and health educators, etc., who work at community-based organizations (CBOs), health departments, and healthcare organizations, most of whom are funded directly or indirectly by the CDC, involved in HIV prevention service delivery.

    CDC is requesting to use two web-based assessments that will be administered to recipients of CBA services: (1) Training Follow-Up Instrument and (2) Technical Assistance (TA) Satisfaction Instrument. The first quantitative assessment will be disseminated 90 days after a training event to agency staff who participated in a training activity. It takes approximately 15 minutes to complete. The purpose of this web-based assessment is to determine the training participants' satisfaction with the trainers, training materials, and the course pace, benefits from the training, and CBA needs, how relevant the training was to their work, and whether they were able to utilize the information gained from the training. The second quantitative assessment will be disseminated 45 days after a technical assistance event to agency staff who participated in a technical assistance and will take about 15 minutes. The second assessment will measure participants' satisfaction with the technical assistance they received, intended or actual use of enhanced capacity, barriers and facilitators to use, and benefits of the technical assistance.

    The purpose of the contractor administered CBA Key Informant Interview is to collect qualitative information to assess the impact of CBA services on organizational capacity (e.g., application of knowledge and skills, potential organization changes as a result of CBA services) and to solicit information about how the CBA program can be improved. These interviews will be conducted via telephone for up to 15 minutes with a subset of up to 40 recipients of CBA services.

    The respondents represent an average of the number of health professionals who receive training and technical assistance from the CBA and PTC grantees. The data collection is necessary (a) to assess CBA consumers' (community-based organizations, health departments, and healthcare organizations) satisfaction with and short-term outcomes from the overall CBA program as well as specific elements of the CBA program; (b) to improve CBA services and enhance the Capacity Building Branch's national capacity building strategy over time; (c) to assess the performance of the grantees in delivering training and technical assistance and to standardize the registration processes across the two CBA programs (i.e., the PTC program and the CBA program) and multiple grantees funded by each program.

    There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The estimated annualized burden hours are 8,643 hours.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Healthcare Professionals Health Professional Application for Training (HPAT) 7,400 2 5/60 Healthcare Professionals Training Follow-up Instrument 3,700 2 15/60 Healthcare Professionals Training Telephone Script 3,700 2 15/60 Healthcare Professionals Technical Assistance (TA) Satisfaction Instrument 3,700 2 15/60 Healthcare Professionals Technical Assistance Telephone Script 3,700 2 15/60 Healthcare Professionals CBA Key Informant Interview Script 40 1 15/60
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20477 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-15-0696] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    National HIV Prevention Program Monitoring and Evaluation (NHM&E) (OMB 0920-0696, Expiration 03/31/2016)—Revision—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    CDC is requesting a three-year approval for revision to the previously approved project.

    The purpose of this revision is to continue collecting standardized HIV prevention program evaluation data from health departments and community-based organizations (CBOs) who receive federal funds for HIV prevention activities. Grantees have the option of key-entering or uploading data to a CDC-provided web-based software application (EvaluationWeb®).

    This revision includes changes to the data variables to adjust to the different monitoring and evaluation needs of new funding announcements without a change in burden. CDC is adjusting the variables by deleting some of the client-level variables related to determining risk factors during the HIV Testing process and replacing these variables with aggregate testing variables that have previously been reported by grantees as part of their progress reports. This will streamline and simplify data submission for the grantees.

    The other significant change is to add budget allocation data variables for CBOs but offset that addition with reductions in client-level variables and conversion of some variables to aggregate-level reporting. There are other minor changes in variables and values to adjust to new technologies and interventions and to improve reporting related to linkage to care and retention in care for HIV positive persons. However, the number of variables deleted approximately equals the number of variables added, so the net result is no change in the grantee reporting burden.

    The evaluation and reporting process is necessary to ensure that CDC receives standardized, accurate, thorough evaluation data from both health department and CBO grantees. For these reasons, CDC developed standardized NHM&E variables through extensive consultation with representatives from health departments, CBOs, and national partners (e.g., The National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors, Urban Coalition of HIV/AIDS Prevention Services, and National Minority AIDS Council).

    CDC requires CBOs and health departments who receive federal funds for HIV prevention to report non-identifying, client-level and aggregate-level, standardized evaluation data to: (1) Accurately determine the extent to which HIV prevention efforts are carried out, what types of agencies are providing services, what resources are allocated to those services, to whom services are being provided, and how these efforts have contributed to a reduction in HIV transmission; (2) improve ease of reporting to better meet these data needs; and (3) be accountable to stakeholders by informing them of HIV prevention activities and use of funds in HIV prevention nationwide.

    CDC HIV prevention program grantees will collect, enter or upload, and report agency-identifying information, budget data, intervention information, and client demographics and behavioral risk characteristics. Data collection will include searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining data, document compilation, grantee training, review of data, and data entry or upload into the web-based system.

    There are no additional costs to respondents other than their time. As noted above, the number of added variables is approximately equal to the number of deleted variables, so there is no change in burden hours from the previously approved information collection. The total estimated annual burden hours are 206,226.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hrs.)
  • Health jurisdiction Health Department Reporting 69 2 1377 Community-based organization Community-based organization Reporting 200 2 40.5
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20478 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-2781] Obstetrics and Gynecology Device Panel of the Medical Device Advisory Committee; Correction AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice that appeared in the Federal Register of June 9, 2014 (79 FR 32964). Due to some recent confusion with the 2014 docket, this 2014 notice and all materials associated with it are being moved to a new docket. This document announces the new docket number.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa Granger, Office of Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9115.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In FR Doc. 2014-13290, appearing on page 32964, in the Federal Register of Monday, June 9, 2014, the following correction is made:

    On page 32964, in the second column, in the headings section of the document, [Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0736]” is corrected to read “FDA-2015-N-2781”.

    Please be aware that this new docket is no longer open for comment.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Jill Hartzler Warner, Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20397 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-2458] Center for Devices and Radiological Health Participation in International Medical Device Regulators Forum, Regulated Product Submission, Table of Contents Pilot Program AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Offices of Device Evaluation (ODE) and In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiation (OIR) are announcing their participation in the International Medical Device Regulators Forum's (IMDRF) Regulated Product Submission Table of Contents Pilot Program. Participation in the Pilot is voluntary and open to applicants who submit premarket approval (PMA) applications or premarket notification (510(k)) to either ODE or OIR. The Pilot project is intended to provide industry, IMDRF, and CDRH staff the opportunity to evaluate the Table of Contents structure and to receive input from industry participants. Participants will be asked to submit their submissions electronically using IMDRF's Table of Contents (ToC) format.

    DATES:

    The IMDRF is seeking interest for participation in the voluntary IMDRF Regulated Product Submission, Table of Contents Pilot Program. See section II.A. for instructions on how to submit a request to participate. The Pilot project will accept submissions with the ToC structure starting September 2015 through September 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jodi Hope N. Anderson, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1520, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-9299, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The IMDRF was conceived in February 2011 as a forum to discuss future directions in medical device regulatory harmonization. It is a voluntary group of medical device regulators from around the world who have come together to build on the strong foundational work of the Global Harmonization Task Force. The Forum aims to accelerate international medical device regulatory harmonization and convergence.

    The Regulated Product Submission (RPS) proposal was endorsed as a new work item by IMDRF at its 2012 inaugural meeting in Singapore. The Work Group, consisting of regulatory authorities from the United States, European Union (EU), Australia, Brazil, Japan, China, and Canada, created a comprehensive Table of Contents for Non-In Vitro Diagnostics (nIVD) and also for IVD Marketing Authorizations, which were formalized in August 2014.

    The ToC provides a comprehensive submission structure that can be used as a harmonized international electronic submission format while minimizing regional divergences and indicating where regional variation exists. This document is intended to provide guidance regarding the location of submission elements. These documents can be found on IMDRF's Web site (Refs. 1 and 2).

    This document is intended to work together with a regional classification matrix, a separate document created for each participating jurisdiction. The classification matrix defines whether a heading is required, not required, optional, conditionally required, etc., for the given submission type. FDA's Classification Matrices can be found on FDA's Web site (Ref. 3).

    The ToC Work Group has previously conducted Pilots for both of the ToC structures, using historical submissions. These Pilots provided valuable feedback regarding the ToC structure and completeness; however, there were limitations to using historical submissions and also a limited number of samples involving submission to more than one jurisdiction. Furthermore, there were no specific guidelines regarding the means of building a submission in a non-standard implementation. Additional IMDRF testing is considered necessary to both evaluate the ToC structures using real regulatory submissions and also evaluate the ToC structure from an industry perspective.

    II. CDRH Participation in IMDRF Regulated Product Submission Table of Contents (ToC) Implementation Pilot

    FDA's participation in the IMDRF RPS ToC Implementation Pilot will provide both local and international benefits for FDA, as it will provide FDA feedback into decisions regarding the ToC's suitability.

    CDRH is participating in the Pilot. In doing so, CDRH will receive premarket submissions from the medical device regulated industry using the IMDRF ToC and FDA Regional Classification Matrices. Applications are to be real regulatory submissions—either PMAs or 510(k) applications—that will result in regulatory decisions by CDRH. PMAs exclude combination products and bundled submissions. The 510(k)s exclude special, abbreviated, and third-party submissions, as well as combination products, bundled submissions, and amendments after a final decision. Pilot participation requires that an application submitted to FDA also be submitted sequentially or simultaneously to at least one additional participating IMDRF region. Currently the participating regulating authorities are Australia (Therapeutic Goods Administration), Brazil (ANVISA), Canada (Health Canada), China (China Food and Drug Administration), and the European Union (Notified Bodies).

    The Pilot is described in greater detail in the IMDRF/RPS WG/N26 Informational Document “IMDRF Table of Contents (ToC) Pilot Plan” (Ref. 4).

    The Regulators participating in this Pilot intend to use submissions only for the requested regulatory activity and objectives of this Pilot. Any submissions generated in relation to this testing will not be distributed to other manufacturers or other regulators. Industry participants should share any submission content directly with the appropriate regulators through the official regulatory processes in place—i.e., submission content will be shared across regulators directly by regulated industry.

    Feedback provided on the ToC structure, experience developing regulatory submissions, or suggestions for additional ToC headings may be shared and made public, excluding any confidential content. Basic applicant and submission identifying information (e.g., Applicant/Correspondent/Manufacturer Name, Device Name, Device Type, and Submission Type) will be shared among IMDRF Regulators for the purpose of conducting the Pilot. The invitation to participants will provide the specific details of the information to be shared among the Regulators as it is a condition for Pilot participation. Any information provided in the resulting Pilot findings should only disclose information explicitly stated as releasable.

    This Pilot will be evaluated in accordance with current FDA protocols and performance standards. Feedback from reviewers will be provided on the reviewability of the submission, based on the IMDRF ToC and FDA classification matrix, and any observations regarding issues in the submission content elements of the ToC Pilot. Feedback from industry will be accepted throughout the submission building process.

    The Pilot project is intended to provide industry, IMDRF, and CDRH staff the opportunity to evaluate the ToC structure, through the receipt of input from industry participants and CDRH staff. Comments received during the Pilot project will be used to evaluate the usability of the ToC format. FDA will be reviewing the contents of each submission as part of this Pilot; however, Pilot participation for the manufacturer will end after successfully passing the refuse to accept criteria. Subsequently, a complete scientific review, outside of the scope of the Pilot, will commence.

    A. Participation

    Volunteers interested in participating in the Pilot project should provide expressions of interest to the IMDRF ToC working group at the IMDRF ToC email account [email protected] Confirmation of your interest in participation in the IMDRF ToC Pilot plan is requested. If notification is received by August 21, 2015, then the manufacturer will be invited to participate in a “participation teleconference” to answer remaining questions. After August 21, 2015, contact FDA Pilot staff by email at [email protected] with any questions. The following information should be included in the request: Applicant, trade name, primary product code, submission type, contact name, and contact email. FDA will contact interested applicants to discuss the Pilot project. FDA is seeking a limited number of participants (no more than nine) to participate in this Pilot project. Participants must adhere to FDA's submission requirements (i.e., eCopy) and Refuse to Accept (RTA) requirements (Refs. 5 and 6).

    B. Procedures

    After reading the ToC Pilot Plan document, applicants use either the nIVD or IVD ToC documents, as well as the respective Classification Matrix to construct their submission. The submission, placed into a single .zip file with the name “MISC FILES.zip” is then loaded onto media via eCopy (e.g., CD, DVD, SD card, USB drive). No paper copy of the submission is needed. All submissions are still expected to comply with the respective PMA or 510(k) RTA guidance documents. All submissions are still expected to comply with the FDA's eCopy Program for Medical Device Submissions Final Guidance (Ref. 5), except for the following: (1) With the exception of the cover letter, all sections discussing paper copy requirements may be disregarded; (2) sections outside the scope of the Pilot (e.g., sections pertaining to Bundled Submissions) may be disregarded; and (3) Attachment A, Part B of the eCopy Guidance is superseded by the ToC document. Applicants are required to provide a paper cover letter, meeting the technical guidance provided in the eCopy Guidance Document, Attachment 1, Part A. In addition, the following statement must be included in bold:

    This submission is part of the IMDRF ToC Pilot, and is organized according to the IMDRF ToC. Accordingly, special eCopy processing applies. As per the agreement for this ToC Pilot, no full paper copies are required, and the specially-formatted submission is zipped and placed within a MISC FILES folder in the eCopy.

    The cover letter and media should be sent via mail to the Document Control Center (DCC) to: Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Document Control Center, Bldg. 66, Rm. G609, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002 ATTN: IMDRF ToC Pilot Submission.

    During the Pilot, CDRH staff will be available to answer any questions or concerns that may arise. Pilot project participants will be asked to comment on and discuss their experiences with the Pilot submissions process. Their input and discussions will assist both IMDRF and CDRH in their use of the ToC in future electronic submission formats.

    III. Duration of the IMDRF Regulated Product Submission ToC Implementation Pilot

    FDA intends to accept requests for participation in the IMDRF's Regulated Product Submission, ToC Implementation Pilot for 12 months, from September 2015 through September 2016. This Pilot program may be extended as resources and needs allow.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This notice 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.FDAC. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120 and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231.

    V. References

    The following references have 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 are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. (FDA has verified all the Web site addresses in this reference section, but we are not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal Register.)

    1. IMDRF Non-In Vitro Diagnostic Device Market Authorization Table of Contents (nIVD MA ToC) Final Document, http://www.imdrf.org/docs/imdrf/final/technical/imdrf-tech-140630-rps-nivd-toc.pdf. 2. IMDRF In Vitro Diagnostic Device Market Authorization Table of Contents (IVD MA ToC) Final Document, http://www.imdrf.org/docs/imdrf/final/technical/imdrf-tech-140630-rps-ivd-toc.pdf. 3. FDA/IMDRF Documents, Regulated Product Submission (RPS) Work Item, http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/InternationalPrograms/IMDRF/ucm417027.htm. 4. IMDRF Table of Contents (ToC) Pilot Plan, http://www.imdrf.org/docs/imdrf/final/procedural/imdrf-proc-150708-toc-pilot-plan.pdf. 5. FDA's eCopy Program for Medical Device Submissions Final Guidance, October 10, 2013, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM313794.pdf. 6. FDA's Refuse to Accept Policy for 510(k)s Final Guidance, December 31, 2012, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM315014.pdf. Dated: August 13, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20430 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001] Arthritis Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.

    Name of Committee: Arthritis Advisory Committee.

    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.

    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on October 23, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.

    Contact Person: Philip Bautista, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, FAX: 301-847-8533, email: [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.

    Agenda: The committee will discuss new drug application (NDA) 207988, lesinurad oral tablets, submitted by Ardea Biosciences, Inc., for the treatment of hyperuricemia associated with gout, in combination with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before October 8, 2015. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before September 30, 2015. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by October 1, 2015.

    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Philip Bautista at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Jill Hartzler Warner, Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20398 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-2817] Medical Devices; Export Certificates; Food and Drug Administration Export Reform and Enhancement Act of 1996; Certification Fees AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the revised fees the Agency will assess for issuing export certificates for devices. The FDA Export Reform and Enhancement Act of 1996 (EREA) provides that any person who exports a device may request FDA certify in writing that the exported device meets certain specified requirements. It further provides that FDA shall issue such a certification within 20 days of the receipt of a request for such certification and that FDA may charge up to $175 for each certification that is issued within the 20 days. Since February 2003, FDA's costs to process the device certificates have increased; however, the export certificate fee for subsequent certificates has not changed. Because of the increase, FDA is raising the fees for subsequent certificates, from the current fee of $15 to $85, and revising the formula used to calculate the number of original and subsequent device export certificates issued. These changes are necessary to ensure that the program remains self-sustaining and to cover FDA's increased costs, which are currently being covered by appropriated funds. Further, this document explains the costs associated with the export certification program for devices.

    DATES:

    The fees described in this document for export certificates for devices will be effective September 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

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

    Written Submissions

    Submit written submissions in the following ways:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2015-N-2817. All comments received may be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the “Comments” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Leila M. Lawrence, Office of Compliance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7400, Option 3, FAX 301-847-8129.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The EREA became law on April 26, 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134, amended by Pub. L. 104-180). The principal purpose of this law is to expedite the export of FDA regulated products, both approved and unapproved, through amendments to sections 801(e) and 802 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 381(e) and 382). Section 801(e)(4) of the FD&C Act provides that any person who exports a drug, animal drug, or device may request that FDA certify in writing that the exported drug, animal drug, or device meets the requirements of sections 801(e) or 802 of the FD&C Act or other applicable requirements of the FD&C Act. Upon a showing that the product meets the applicable requirements, the law provides that FDA shall issue export certification within 20 days of the receipt of a request for such certification. It also allows FDA to collect fees of up to $175 for each certificate that is issued within the 20-day period. The focus of this notice is on both the fee charged per subsequent export certificate and how the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) calculates the number of original and subsequent certificates issued.

    The original notice on the EREA fees for export certificates was published in the Federal Register on November 6, 1996 (61 FR 57445), and became effective October 1, 1996. A subsequent notice, published in the Federal Register on February 11, 2003 (68 FR 6925), established CDRH's intent to charge the maximum fee of $175 for the first certificate and $15 for all subsequent certificates issued for the same product(s) in the same request. Since February 2003, an updated resource review within CDRH has identified that recoverable costs of the device export certifications have increased. Accordingly, the fees have been recalculated so that the aggregate amount of fees collected will meet the current and future aggregate costs to issue device export certificates.

    II. Agency Costs and Fees To Be Assessed for Export Certificates

    The costs of the export certification program for devices have grown since fiscal year 2003 (FY 03); however, the export certificate fee for subsequent certificates has not changed. Moreover, FDA has allowed multiple devices to be included in a single certificate rather than requiring that each device have a separate certificate for which a fee is charged. The increased costs in the export certification program for devices are attributable to two major areas: (1) The increased volume of requests for certificates and (2) the increase in payroll costs over the past 12 years. These two cost areas account for the major differences between FY 03 and this current year.

    The volume of requests for certificates has increased by 369 percent since FY 1997 and 107 percent since FY 2003. Hence, the export certificate program staff size has increased to accommodate this increased volume of requests. Table 1 shows the increase in certificates from FY 97 to FY 14:

    Table 1—Number of Export Certificates From Fiscal Year 1997 to Fiscal Year 2014 Fiscal year (FY) Total certificates FY 1997 11,140 FY 2001 23,737 FY 2003 25,236 FY 2012 49,916 FY 2013 50,612 FY 2014 52,193

    The cost of the export certification program for devices in FY 14 is $5,735,270 for payroll and operating expenses.

    The four recoverable cost categories for preparing and issuing export certificates are:

    • Direct personnel for research, review, tracking, writing, and assembly;

    • purchase of equipment and supplies used for tracking, processing, printing, and packaging (recovery of the cost of the equipment is calculated over its useful life);

    • billing and collection of fees; and

    • overhead and administrative support.

    As previously mentioned in this document, FDA may charge up to $175 for each certificate. Certificates for some classes of products cost the Agency more than $175 to prepare. Subsequent certificates issued for the same product(s) in response to the same request generally cost the Agency less than $175. However, due to the increase in payroll and operating expenses, the fee for issuing subsequent certificates for the same product(s) in response to the same request is being raised from the current fee of $15 to $85. Since the inception of the export certification program in 1996, this is only the second increase of the device export certificate fee under EREA. In addition, FDA is revising its formula for calculating the number of original and subsequent certificates issued.

    The following fees will be assessed starting September 1, 2015, for device export certificates:

    Table 2—Fees for Original and Subsequent Export Certificates Type of certificate Fee (dollars) Original certificates (may be multiple in number) 1 175 All subsequent certificates issued for the same product(s) in response to the same request 1 85 1 As calculated under formula.

    Under its formula for calculating applicable fees, CDRH has allowed multiple devices to be included in a single certificate rather than requiring that each device have a separate certificate for which a fee is charged. While CDRH will continue to allow multiple devices to be included in a single certificate, it is revising the formula by which the number of original device export certificates (at $175 per certificate) and subsequent certificates (at $85 per certificate) will be calculated. The number of original and subsequent device export certificates will be calculated using a revised formula that sets the maximum pages per certificate to 25 pages (the certificate page and a maximum of 24 pages for any attachments). Previously, the maximum number of pages was 50. If the request is more than 25 pages, then the total number of pages created by the request is divided by 25 and that number will be the number of original certificates that will be charged at $175 and the remaining number of subsequent certificates will be charged at $85 each. For example, if you request 15 certificates and each certificate has 12 attachment pages plus the certificate page that means each certificate is 13 pages, and your request will generate 195 pages in all. This number of pages is divided by 25 and that equals 7.8, which is rounded to 8. Therefore, you will be charged for 8 original certificates at $175 each and 7 subsequent certificates at $85 each. Please note the maximum number of attachment pages is 24 pages. If you have more than 24 pages you will need to split the request into two or more requests.

    III. Request for Comments

    Although the EREA does not require FDA to solicit comments on the assessment and collection of fees for export certificates, FDA is inviting comments from interested persons in order to have the benefit of additional views.

    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. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This notice refers to previously approved collections of information. 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 sections 801(e) and 802 of the FD&C Act have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0498.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20429 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Information Program on Clinical Trials: Maintaining a Registry and Results Databank (NLM)

    Summary: Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on June 10, 2015, page 32968 and allowed 60-days for public comment. One public comment was received. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment. The National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Direct Comments to OMB: Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-6974, Attention: NIH Desk Officer.

    Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this publication.

    For Further Information Contact: To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments or request more information on the proposed project contact: David Sharlip, Office of Administrative and Management Analysis Services, National Library of Medicine, Building 38A, Room B2N12, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894, or call non-toll-free number (301) 402-9680, or Email your request, including your address to: [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    Proposed Collection: Information Program on Clinical Trials: Maintaining a Registry and Results Databank (NLM), 0925-0586, Expiration Date 08/31/2015, EXTENSION, National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: The National Institutes of Health operates ClinicalTrials.gov, which was established as a clinical trial registry under section 113 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) and was expanded to include a results data bank by Title VIII of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA). ClinicalTrials.gov collects registration and results information for clinical trials and other types of clinical studies (e.g., observational studies and patient registries) with the objectives of enhancing patient enrollment and providing a mechanism for tracking subsequent progress of clinical studies, to the benefit of public health. It is widely used by patients, physicians, and medical researchers; in particular those involved in clinical research. While many clinical studies are registered and submit results information voluntarily, FDAAA requires the registration of certain applicable clinical trials of drugs and devices and the submission of results information for completed applicable clinical trials of drugs and devices that are approved, licensed, or cleared by the Food and Drug Administration. Beginning in 2009, results information was required to include information about serious and frequent adverse events.

    This extension request does not include any changes to the information submission requirements for ClinicalTrials.gov that were proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Clinical Trial Registration and Results Submission that was issued on November 21, 2014 and for which the public comment period closed on March 23, 2015 (79 FR 225, Nov. 21, 2014). The NIH is continuing to review submitted public comments as it prepares the final rule. The NIH will make any corresponding changes to the ClinicalTrials.gov information collection via separate procedure.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than there their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 682,535.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Submission type Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average time per response
  • (in hours)
  • Total annual hour burden
    PRS Account 5,700 1 15/60 1,425 Initial Registration 23,000 1 7 161,000 Updates 23,000 8 2 368,000 Initial Results 3,700 1 25 92,500 Updates 3,700 2 8 59,200 Certification to Delay Results 700 1 30/60 350 Extension Request 30 1 2 60
    Dated: August 13, 2015. David Sharlip, Project Clearance Liaison, NLM, NIH.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20473 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; National Toxicology Program (NTP) Level of Concern Categories Study (NIEHS)

    Summary: In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.

    Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited on one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    To Submit Comments and for Further Information: To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Dr. Kristina Thayer, Director of the Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of National Toxicology Program, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop K2-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, or call non-toll-free number (919) 541-5021, or Email your request, including your address to: [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.

    Proposed Collection: National Toxicology Program Level of Concern Categories, 0925-NEW, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: The National Toxicology Program (NTP) has used a 5-point level of concern (LoC) framework to communicate NTP's assessment of the degree of concern regarding the potential human health effects of selected substances given what is known about their toxicity, level of human exposure, and pharmacokinetics. As part of its systematic review methodologies, the NTP is updating its LoC framework to enhance transparency in what the LoC categories mean, describing the factors considered in reaching conclusions and identifying strategies for improving their use as a risk communication tool. This study will use expert solicitation from five NTP stakeholder sectors (academia, industry, non-government organizations, and federal and state agencies) to aid in determining the optimal number of LoC categories for an updated LoC framework.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 300.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form name Type of respondent Number
  • of respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average burden
  • per response
  • (in hours)
  • Total annual burden hour
    LoC “Cards” Experts 200 2 90/60 600
    Dated: August 11, 2015. Joellen M. Austin, Associate Director for Management, NIEHS, NIH.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20474 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging: Notice of Closed Meeting

    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 meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and 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 on Aging Initial Review Group; Neuroscience of Aging Review Committee.

    Date: October 1-2, 2015.

    Time: 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Doubletree Hotel Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Jeannette L. Johnson, Deputy Review Branch Chief, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7705, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 13, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20453 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    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 meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and 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: Center for Inherited Disease Research Access Committee.

    Date: September 17-18, 2015.

    Time: 5 p.m. to 4 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Camilla E. Day, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, CIDR, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 4075, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-8837, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 13, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20451 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    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 meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and 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 on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Integrative Perspectives in Early Life.

    Date: September 21, 2015.

    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Carmen Moten, Ph.D., MPH., National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7703, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 13, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20452 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health: 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 Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee.

    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: Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee.

    Date: September 9, 2015.

    Time: 10:15 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Agenda: The NIH Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC) will review and discuss selected human gene transfer protocols and related data management activities. For more information please check the meeting agenda at OBA Meetings Page (available at the following URL: https://auth.osp.od.nih.gov/office-biotechnology-activities/event/2015-09-09-120000-2015-09-09-210000/rac-meeting.

    Place: National Institutes of Health Building 35, Conference Room 620/630, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Chris Nice, Program Assistant, Office of Biotechnology Activities, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 750, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-9838, [email protected].

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: http://oba.od.nih.gov/rdna/rdna.html, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    OMB's “Mandatory Information Requirements for Federal Assistance Program Announcements” (45 FR 39592, June 11, 1980) requires a statement concerning the official government programs contained in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. Normally NIH lists in its announcements the number and title of affected individual programs for the guidance of the public. Because the guidance in this notice covers virtually every NIH and Federal research program in which DNA recombinant molecule techniques could be used, it has been determined not to be cost effective or in the public interest to attempt to list these programs. Such a list would likely require several additional pages. In addition, NIH could not be certain that every Federal program would be included as many Federal agencies, as well as private organizations, both national and international, have elected to follow the NIH Guidelines. In lieu of the individual program listing, NIH invites readers to direct questions to the information address above about whether individual programs listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance are affected.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.14, Intramural Research Training Award; 93.22, Clinical Research Loan Repayment Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 93.232, Loan Repayment Program for Research Generally; 93.39, Academic Research Enhancement Award; 93.936, NIH Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Loan Repayment Program; 93.187, Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 13, 2015. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20448 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences: Notice of Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of meetings of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Advisory Council.

    The meetings will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The 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: Cures Acceleration Network Review Board.

    Date: September 3, 2015.

    Time: 8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.

    Agenda: Report from the Institute Director.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, Conference Room 6, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Danilo A. Tagle, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 1 Democracy Plaza, Room 992, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-8064, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to finalizing the agenda and scheduling of meeting topics.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Advisory Council.

    Date: September 3, 2015.

    Open: 8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.

    Agenda: Report from the Institute Director and other staff.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, Conference Room 6, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Closed: 3:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, Conference Room 6, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Danilo A. Tagle, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 1 Democracy Plaza, Room 992, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-8064, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to finalizing the agenda and scheduling of meeting topics.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, B—Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 13, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20450 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; 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: Integrative, Functional and Cognitive Neuroscience Integrated Review Group; Neuroendocrinology, Neuroimmunology, Rhythms and Sleep Study Section.

    Date: October 1-2, 2015.

    Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Admiral Fell Inn, 888 South Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21231.

    Contact Person: Michael Selmanoff, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5164, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1119, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Risk, Prevention and Health Behavior Integrated Review Group; Psychosocial Development, Risk and Prevention Study Section.

    Date: October 1-2, 2015.

    Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Fairmont Washington, DC, 2401 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Anna L Riley, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3114, MSC 7759, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2889, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Bioengineering Sciences & Technologies Integrated Review Group; Biodata Management and Analysis Study Section.

    Date: October 1-2, 2015.

    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Doubletree Hotel Bethesda, (Formerly Holiday Inn Select), 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Mark Caprara, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5156, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1042, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Immunology Integrated Review Group; Cellular and Molecular Immunology—A Study Section.

    Date: October 1-2, 2015.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hotel Monaco Alexandria, 480 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.

    Contact Person: David B Winter, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4204, MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1152, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 13, 2015. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20449 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1526] Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title 44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

    DATES:

    These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.

    From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.

    ADDRESSES:

    The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.

    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: July 28, 2015. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. State and county Location and case No. Chief executive officer
  • of community
  • Community map
  • repository
  • Online location of letter
  • of map revision
  • Effective date of modification Community
  • No.
  • Arizona: Pima Town of Marana (14-09-3997P) The Honorable Gilbert Davidson, Manager, Town of Marana, 11555 West Civic Center Drive, Marana, AZ 85653 Town Hall, 11555 West Civic Center Drive, Marana, AZ 85653 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 24, 2015 040118 Pima Unincorporated areas of Pima County (14-09-3997P) The Honorable Sharon Bronson, Chair, Pima County Board of Supervisors, 130 West Congress Street, 11th Floor, Tucson, AZ 85701 Pima County Flood Control District, 97 East Congress Street, 3rd Floor, Tucson, AZ 85701 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 24, 2015 040073 Colorado: Arapahoe City of Englewood (15-08-0562P) The Honorable Randy Penn, Mayor, City of Englewood, 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, CO 80110 Engineering Services Department, 3400 South Elati Street, Englewood, CO 80110 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 25, 2015 085074 Denver City and County of Denver (15-08-0562P) The Honorable Michael B. Hancock, Mayor, City and County of Denver, 1437 Bannock Street, Suite 350, Denver, CO 80202 City and County of Denver, Department of Public Works, 201 West Colfax Avenue, Denver, CO 80202 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 25, 2015 080046 Douglas Unincorporated areas of Douglas County (14-08-1222P) The Honorable Jill Repella, Chair, Douglas County Board of Commissioners, 100 3rd Street, Castle Rock, CO 80104 Douglas County Department of Public Works, 100 3rd Street, Castle Rock, CO 80104 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 18, 2015 080049 Florida: Manatee Unincorporated areas of Manatee County (14-04-A642P) The Honorable Betsy Benac, Chair, Manatee County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 1000, Bradenton, FL 34206 Manatee County Building and Development Services Department, 1112 Mantee Avenue West, Bradenton, FL 34205 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Jul. 3, 2015 120153 Orange City of Orlando (15-04-4309X) The Honorable Buddy Dyer, Mayor, City of Orlando, 400 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, FL 32802 Stormwater Management Department, 4200 South John Young Parkway, Orlando, FL 32839 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 5, 2015 120186 Orange Unincorporated areas of Orange County (15-04-4309X) The Honorable Teresa Jacobs, Mayor, Orange County, 201 South Rosalind Avenue, 5th Floor, Orlando, FL 32801 Orange County Permitting Services Division, 400 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, FL 32801 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 5, 2015 120179 Maryland: Frederick Unincorporated areas of Frederick County (15-03-0484P) The Honorable Jan H. Gardner, Frederick County Executive, 12 East Church Street, Frederick, MD 21701 Public Works Department, 355 Montevue Lane, Suite 200, Frederick, MD 21702 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 31, 2015 240027 New Mexico: Eddy City of Carlsbad (14-06-4548P) The Honorable Dale W. Janway, Mayor, City of Carlsbad, P.O. Box 1569, Carlsbad, NM 88221 City Hall, 101 North Halagueno Street, Carlsbad, NM 88220 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 28, 2015 350017 New York: Niagara Town of Niagara (15-02-0453P) The Honorable Lee S. Wallace, Supervisor, Town of Niagara, 7105 Lockport Road, Niagara Falls, NY 14305 Town Hall, 7105 Lockport Road, Niagara Falls, NY 14305 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 16, 2015 360507 Niagara Town of Wheatfield (15-02-0453P) The Honorable Robert B. Cliffe, Supervisor, Town of Wheatfield, 2800 Church Road, Wheatfield, NY 14120 Town Hall, 2800 Church Road, Wheatfield, NY 14120 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 16, 2015 360513 Suffolk Town of Southampton (15-02-0499P) The Honorable Anna Throne-Holst, Supervisor, Town of Southampton, 116 Hampton Road, Southampton, NY 11968 Building Department, 116 Hampton Road, Southampton, NY 11968 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 16, 2015 365342 North Carolina: Pitt City of Greenville (15-04-3563P) The Honorable Allen M. Thomas, Mayor, City of Greenville, 200 West 5th Street, Greenville, NC 27834 City Hall, 200 West 5th Street, Greenville, NC 27834 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 26, 2015 370191 Pitt Unincorporated areas of Pitt County (15-04-3563P) The Honorable Glen Webb, Chairman, Pitt County Board of Commissioners, 1717 West 5th Street, Greenville, NC 27834 Pitt County Planning Department, 1717 West 5th Street, Greenville, NC 27834 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 26, 2015 370372 Wayne City of Goldsboro (15-04-2620P) The Honorable Alfonzo King, Mayor, City of Goldsboro, P.O. Drawer A, Goldsboro, NC 27533 Engineering Department, 200 North Center Street, Goldsboro, NC 27530 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 25, 2015 370255 Texas: Bell City of Temple (14-06-3184P) The Honorable Danny Dunn, Mayor, City of Temple, 2 North Main Street, Suite 103, Temple, TX 76501 Planning Department, 2 North Main Street, Temple, TX 76501 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 25, 2015 480034 Bexar City of San Antonio (14-06-4529P) The Honorable Ivy R. Taylor, Mayor, City of San Antonio, P.O. Box 839966, San Antonio, TX 78283 Storm Water Division, 1901 South Alamo Street, 2nd Floor, San Antonio, TX 78204 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 2, 2015 480045 Bexar City of San Antonio (15-06-0641P) The Honorable Ivy R. Taylor, Mayor, City of San Antonio, P.O. Box 839966, San Antonio, TX 78283 Storm Water Division, 1901 South Alamo Street, 2nd Floor, San Antonio, TX 78204 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 22, 2015 480045 Brazoria City of Iowa Colony (15-06-1613P) The Honorable Robert Wall, Mayor, City of Iowa Colony, 12003 County Road 65, Iowa Colony, TX 77583 City Hall, 12003 County Road 65, Iowa Colony, TX 77583 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 28, 2015 481071 Brazoria City of Manvel (15-06-1613P) The Honorable Delores Martin, Mayor, City of Manvel, 20025 Highway 6, Manvel, TX 77578 City Hall, 20025 Highway 6, Manvel, TX 77578 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 28, 2015 480076 Brazoria Unincorporated areas of Brazoria County (15-06-1613P) The Honorable Matt Sebesta, Jr., Brazoria County Judge, 111 East Locust Street, Suite 102, Angleton, TX 77515 Brazoria County Floodplain Department, 111 East Locust Street, Building A-29, Angleton, TX 77515 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 28, 2015 485458 Denton Unincorporated areas of Denton County (15-06-2283X) The Honorable Mary Horn, Denton County Judge, 110 West Hickory Street, 2nd Floor, Denton, TX 76201 Denton County Government Center, 1505 East McKinney Street, Suite 175, Denton, TX 76209 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Oct. 5, 2015 480774 El Paso Town of Anthony (15-06-0836P) The Honorable Luis Vela, Mayor, Town of Anthony, 401 Wildcat Drive, Anthony, TX 79281 Town Hall, 401 Wildcat Drive, Anthony, TX 79281 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 15, 2015 480804 Harris City of Houston (15-06-1456P) The Honorable Annise D. Parker, Mayor, City of Houston, P.O. Box 1562, Houston, TX 77251 Office of Emergency Management, 5320 North Shepherd Drive, Houston, TX 77091 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 25, 2015 480296 Tarrant City of Fort Worth (14-06-3506P) The Honorable Betsy Price, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 City Hall, 1000 Throckmorton Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 3, 2015 480596 Tarrant City of North Richland Hills (14-06-2312P) The Honorable Oscar Trevino, Jr., P.E., Mayor, City of North Richland Hills, 7301 Northeast Loop 820, North Richland Hills, TX, 76180 City Hall, 7301 Northeast Loop 820, North Richland Hills, TX, 76180 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 5, 2015 480607 Travis City of Pflugerville (14-06-4534P) The Honorable Brandon Wade, Manager, City of Pflugerville, P.O. Box 589, Pflugerville, TX 78691 Planning Department, 201-B East Pecan Street, Pflugerville, TX 78691 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 27, 2015 481028
    [FR Doc. 2015-20343 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001] Final Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.

    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.

    DATES:

    The effective date of September 16, 2015 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.

    ADDRESSES:

    The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov by the effective date indicated above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov. The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: July 28, 2015. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    I. Watershed-based studies:

    Lower Levisa Watershed Community Community map repository address Floyd County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1433 City of Allen City Hall, 22 Main Street, Allen, KY 41601. City of Martin City Hall, 11729 Main Street, Martin, KY 41649. City of Prestonsburg Municipal Building, 200 North Lake Drive, Prestonsburg, KY 41653. City of Wayland City Hall, 2643 King Kelly Coleman Highway, Wayland, KY 41666. City of Wheelwright City Hall, 1479 Kentucky Route 306, Wheelwright, KY 41669. Unincorporated Areas of Floyd County Courthouse Annex, 313 Westminister Street, Prestonsburg, KY 41653. Johnson County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1433 City of Paintsville City Offices, 340 Main Street, Paintsville, KY 41240. Unincorporated Areas of Johnson County Johnson County Judge's Office, 908 3rd Street, Paintsville, KY 41240. Knott County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1433 City of Pippa Passes Knott County Emergency Management, 40 Center Street, Hindman, KY 41822. Unincorporated Areas of Knott County Knott County Emergency Management, 40 Center Street, Hindman, KY 41822. Lawrence County, KY, Kentucky Unincorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1433 City of Louisa Louisa City Hall, 215 North Main Cross Street, Louisa, KY 41230. Unincorporated Areas of Lawrence County Lawrence County Judge's Office, 122 South Main Cross Street, 2nd Floor, Louisa, KY 41230. Magoffin County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1433 Unincorporated Areas of Magoffin County Magoffin County Courthouse, Judges Office, 201 East Maple Street, Salyersville, KY 41465. Morgan County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1433 Unincorporated Areas of Morgan County Morgan County Courthouse, 450 Prestonsburg Street, West Liberty, KY 41472. Pike County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1433 Unincorporated Areas of Pike County Pike County Courthouse, 146 Main Street, Pikeville, KY 41501. Tug Fork Watershed Community Community map repository address Lawrence County, Kentucky Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1433 City of Louisa Louisa City Hall, 215 North Main Cross Street, Louisa, KY 41230. Unincorporated Areas of Lawrence County Lawrence County Judge's Office, 122 South Main Cross Street, 2nd Floor, Louisa, KY 41230. Martin County, Kentucky Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1433 City of Inez Martin County Disaster Emergency Services, 100 Main Street, Inez, KY 41224. Town of Warfield Martin County Disaster Emergency Services, 100 Main Street, Inez, KY 41224. Unincorporated Areas of Martin County Martin County Disaster Emergency Services, 100 Main Street, Inez, KY 41224. Pike County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1433 Unincorporated Areas of Pike County Pike County Courthouse, 146 Main Street, Pikeville, KY 41501.

    II. Non-watershed-based studies:

    Community Community map repository address Kings County, California, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1440 City of Lemoore Planning Department, 711 West Cinnamon Drive, Lemoore, CA 93245. Unincorporated Areas of Kings County Community Development Agency, 1400 West Lacey Boulevard, Building 6, Hanford, CA 93230. Rock County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1356 City of Beloit City Hall, 100 State Street, Beloit, WI 53511. City of Brodhead City Hall, 1111 West 2nd Avenue, Brodhead, WI 53520. City of Edgerton City Hall, 12 Albion Street, Edgerton, WI 53534. City of Evansville City Hall, 31 South Madison Street, Evansville, WI 53536. City of Janesville City Hall, 18 North Jackson Street, Janesville, WI 53545. City of Milton City Hall, 430 East High Street, Milton, WI 53563. Unincorporated Areas of Rock County Rock County Courthouse, 51 South Main Street, Janesville, WI 53545. Village of Clinton Village Hall, 301 Cross Street, Clinton, WI 53525. Village of Footville Village Hall, 156 Depot Street, Footville, WI 53537. Teton County, Wyoming, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1427 Unincorporated Areas of Teton County Teton County Engineering Office, 320 South King Street, Jackson, WY 83001.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20447 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4237-DR]; [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002] Oglala Sioux Tribe; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Oglala Sioux Tribe (FEMA-4237-DR), dated August 7, 2015, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective August 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated August 7, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation resulting from severe storms, straight-line winds, and flooding during the period of May 8-29, 2015, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance to the tribal members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and Hazard Mitigation throughout the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Gary R. Stanley, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Tribal members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation for Individual Assistance.

    All areas within the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
    W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20345 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1523] Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.

    DATES:

    Comments are to be submitted on or before November 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1523, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.

    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: July 24, 2015. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    I. Watershed-based studies:

    Lower Suwannee Watershed Community Community map repository address Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Gilchrist County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas City of Trenton City Hall, 114 North Main Street, Trenton, FL 32690. Town of Fanning Springs City Hall, 17651 NW 90th Court, Fanning Springs, FL 32693. Unincorporated Areas of Gilchrist County Gilchrist County Building and Zoning Department, 209 SE First Street, Trenton, FL 32690. Levy County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas Unincorporated Areas of Levy County Levy County Building Department, 9010 NE 79th Avenue, Bronson, FL 32621. Madison County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas Unincorporated Areas of Madison County Madison County Building Department, 229 S.W. Pickney Street, Madison, FL 32340. Suwannee County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas Unincorporated Areas of Suwannee County County Coordinator's Office, Suwannee County Courthouse, 200 South Ohio/MLK Jr. Avenue, Live Oak, FL 32064. Tug Fork Watershed Community Community map repository address Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Wayne County, West Virginia, and Incorporated Areas City of Kenova Municipal Building, 1501 Pine Street, Kenova, WV 25530. Town of Ceredo Town Hall, 700 B Street, Ceredo, WV 25507. Town of Fort Gay Town Hall, 3407 Wayne Street, Fort Gay, WV 25514. Unincorporated Areas of
  • Wayne County
  • County Courthouse, 700 Hendricks Street, Wayne, WV 25570.
    Wheeler Lake Watershed Community Community map repository address Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Franklin County, Tennessee, and Incorporated Areas Unincorporated Areas of Franklin County Franklin County Planning and Zoning Office, Courthouse Basement, Room Five, One South Jefferson Street, Winchester, TN 37398. Lawrence County, Tennessee, and Incorporated Areas Unincorporated Areas of Lawrence County Lawrence County Building Official's Office, County Courthouse, 240 West Gaines Street, Lawrenceburg, TN 38464. Lincoln County, Tennessee, and Incorporated Areas Unincorporated Areas of Lincoln County Lincoln County Courthouse, 312 West Market Street, Fayetteville, TN 37334.

    II. Non-watershed-based studies:

    Community Community map repository address Marion County, Florida, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 15-04-2839S Preliminary Date: March 31, 2015 City of Ocala Department of Public Works, 1805 Northeast 30th Avenue, Ocala, FL 34470. Unincorporated Areas of Marion County Marion County Growth Services, 2710 East Silver Springs Boulevard, Ocala, FL 34470. Athens-Clarke County, Georgia (All Jurisdictions) Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 14-04-A055S Preliminary Date: February 13, 2015 Athens-Clarke County 120 West Dougherty Street, Athens, GA 30601. DeKalb County, Georgia, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 12-04-7371S Preliminary Date: January 2, 2015 City of Lithonia City Hall, 6920 Main Street, Lithonia, GA 30058. City of Stone Mountain City Hall, 875 Main Street, Stone Mountain, GA 30083. Unincorporated Areas of DeKalb County DeKalb County Public Works, Roads and Drainage Division, 727 Camp Road, Decatur, GA 30032. Rockdale County, Georgia, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 12-04-7371S Preliminary Date: January 2, 2015 City of Conyers Planning and Inspection Services, 1174 Scott Street, Conyers, GA 30012. Unincorporated Areas of Rockdale County Rockdale County Administration and Services Building, 958 Milstead Avenue, Conyers, GA 30012. Walton County, Georgia, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 12-04-7371S Preliminary Date: January 2, 2015 City of Loganville Planning and Development Office, 4385 Pecan Street, Loganville, GA 30052. City of Monroe City Hall, 215 North Broad Street, Monroe, GA 30655. City of Social Circle City Hall, 138 East Hightower Trail, Social Circle, GA 30025. City of Walnut Grove Walnut Grove City Hall, 2581 Leone Avenue, Loganville, GA 30052. Town of Between Between Town Hall, 2150 New Hope Church Road Southwest, Monroe, GA 30655. Unincorporated Areas of Walton County Walton County Planning and Development Office, 303 South Hammond Drive, Monroe, GA 30655. Washington County, Maryland, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 14-03-3545S Preliminary Date: March 31, 2015 City of Hagerstown City Hall, One East Franklin Street, Hagerstown, MD 21740. Town of Boonsboro Town Hall, 21 North Main Street, Boonsboro, MD 21713. Town of Clear Spring Town Hall, 146 Cumberland Street, Clear Spring, MD 21722. Town of Funkstown Town Hall, 30 East Baltimore Street, Funkstown, MD 21734. Town of Hancock Town Hall, 126 West High Street, Hancock, MD 21750. Town of Keedysville Town Hall, 19 South Main Street, Keedysville, MD 21756. Town of Sharpsburg Town Hall, 106 East Main Street, Sharpsburg, MD 21782. Town of Smithsburg Town Hall, 21 West Water Street, Smithsburg, MD 21783. Town of Williamsport Town Hall, Two North Conococheague Street, Williamsport, MD 21795. Unincorporated Areas of Washington County Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, MD 21740. Dukes County, Massachusetts (All Jurisdictions) Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 11-01-0527S Preliminary Dates: June 3, 2013 and April 27, 2015 Town of Aquinnah Town Hall, 65 State Road, Aquinnah, MA 02535. Town of Chilmark Town Hall, 401 Middle Road, Chilmark, MA 02535. Town of Edgartown Town Hall, 70 Main Street, Edgartown, MA 02539. Town of Gosnold Gosnold Town Hall, 28 Tower Hill Road, Cuttyhunk Island, MA 02713. Town of Oak Bluffs Town Hall, 56 School Street, Oak Bluffs, MA 02557. Town of Tisbury Tisbury Town Hall, 51 Spring Street, Vineyard Haven, MA 02568. Town of West Tisbury Town Hall, 1059 State Road, West Tisbury, MA 02575. Bernalillo County, New Mexico, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 14-06-3984S Preliminary Date: February 23, 2015 City of Albuquerque Development Review Services Division, 600 2nd Street Northwest, Suite 201, Albuquerque, NM 87102. Unincorporated Areas of Bernalillo County Bernalillo County Public Works Division, 2400 Broadway Southeast, Albuquerque, NM 87102. Bladen County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 14-04-9706S Preliminary Date: April 30, 2014 Unincorporated Areas of Bladen County Bladen County Courthouse, 106 East Broad Street, Room 107, Elizabethtown, NC 28337. Bladen County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 14-04-9707S Preliminary Date: August 29, 2014 Town of Bladenboro Town Hall, 305 South Main Street, Bladenboro, NC 28320. Unincorporated Areas of Bladen County Bladen County Courthouse, 106 East Broad Street, Room 107, Elizabethtown, NC 28337. Bladen County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 14-04-9708S Preliminary Date: August 29, 2014 Unincorporated Areas of Bladen County Bladen County Courthouse, 106 East Broad Street, Room 107, Elizabethtown, NC 28337. Brunswick County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 11-04-8240S Preliminary Date: August 29, 2014 City of Boiling Spring Lakes City Hall, 9 East Boiling Spring Road, Boiling Spring Lakes, NC 28461. City of Southport City Hall, 201 East Moore Street, Southport, NC 28461. Town of Belville Belville Town Hall, 117 G Village Road, Leland, NC 28451. Town of Calabash Town Hall, 882 Persimmon Road, Calabash, NC 28567. Town of Carolina Shores Town Hall, 200 Persimmon Road, Carolina Shores, NC 28467. Town of Caswell Beach Town Hall, 1100 Caswell Beach Road, Caswell Beach, NC 28465. Town of Holden Beach Town Hall, 110 Rothschild Street, Holden Beach, NC 28462. Town of Leland Town Hall, 102 Town Hall Drive, Leland, NC 28451. Town of Navassa Town Hall, 334 Main Street, Navassa, NC 28451. Town of Oak Island Town Hall, 4601 East Oak Island Drive, Oak Island, NC 28465. Town of Ocean Isle Beach Town Hall, 3 West Third Street, Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469. Town of Shallotte Town Hall, 106 Cheers Street, Shallotte, NC 28470. Town of St. James St. James Town Hall, 3628 St. James Drive, Southport, NC 28461. Town of Sunset Beach Town Hall, 700 Sunset Boulevard North, Sunset Beach, NC 28468. Town of Varnamtown Varnamtown Town Hall, 100 Varnamtown Road, Supply, NC 28462. Unincorporated Areas of Brunswick County Brunswick County Building Inspections Department, 75 Courthouse Drive, Building One, Bolivia, NC 28422. Columbus County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 11-04-8240S Preliminary Date: August 29, 2014 City of Whiteville City Hall, 317 South Madison Street, Whiteville, NC 28472. Town of Boardman Boardman Town Hall, 1241 Old Boardman Road, Evergreen, NC 28438. Town of Cerro Gordo Town Hall, 36 West Railroad Street, Cerro Gordo, NC 28430. Town of Fair Bluff Town Hall, 1175 Main Street, Fair Bluff, NC 28439. Town of Tabor City Town Manager's Office, 103 East Fourth Street, Tabor City, NC 28463. Unincorporated Areas of Columbus County Columbus County Tax Office, 110 Courthouse Square, Whiteville, NC 28472. Duplin County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 11-04-6510S Preliminary Date: April 30, 2014 Town of Beulaville Town Hall, 111 West Quinn Street, Beulaville, NC 28518. Town of Wallace Town Hall, 316 East Murray Street, Wallace, NC 28466. Town of Warsaw Town Hall, 121 South Front Street, Warsaw, NC 28398. Unincorporated Areas of Duplin County Duplin County Planning Department, 224 Seminary Street, Kenansville, NC 28349. Duplin County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 14-04-9708S Preliminary Date: August 29, 2014 Town of Wallace Town Hall, 316 East Murray Street, Wallace, NC 28466. Unincorporated Areas of Duplin County Duplin County Planning Department, 224 Seminary Street, Kenansville, NC 28349. New Hanover County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 11-04-6510S Preliminary Date: August 29, 2014 City of Wilmington Planning, Development and Transportation Department, Planning Division, 305 Chestnut Street, Wilmington, NC 28401. Town of Carolina Beach Town Hall, Planning Department, 1121 North Lake Park Boulevard, Carolina Beach, NC 28428. Town of Kure Beach Town Hall, Building Inspections, 117 Settlers Lane, Kure Beach, NC 28449. Town of Wrightsville Beach Town Hall, Planning and Parks Department, 321 Causeway Drive, Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480. Unincorporated Areas of New Hanover County New Hanover County Development Services Office, 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 110, Wilmington, NC 28403. Onslow County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 14-04-9708S Preliminary Date: August 29, 2014 Town of Holly Ridge Town Hall, 212 North Dyson Street, Holly Ridge, NC 28445. Unincorporated Areas of Onslow County Onslow County Floodplain Administration, 604 College Street, Jacksonville, NC 28540. Pender County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 11-04-6510S Preliminary Date: August 29, 2014 Town of Atkinson Town Hall, 200 North Town Hall Avenue, Atkinson, NC 28421. Town of Burgaw City Hall, 109 North Walker Street, Burgaw, NC 28425. Town of Surf City Building Inspection Department, 214 North New River Drive, Surf City, NC 28445. Town of Topsail Beach Building Inspection Department, 820 South Anderson Boulevard, Topsail Beach, NC 28445. Town of Watha Town Hall, 425 Watha Road, Watha, NC 28478. Unincorporated Areas of Pender County Pender County Planning Department, 805 South Walker Street, Burgaw, NC 28425. Village of Saint Helena Village Hall, 305 East Main Street, Saint Helena, NC 28425. Pender County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 14-04-9706S Preliminary Date: April 30, 2014 Unincorporated Areas of Pender County Pender County Planning Department, 805 South Walker Street, Burgaw, NC 28425. Robeson County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 11-04-8240S Preliminary Date: August 29, 2014 City of Lumberton Planning Department, 501 East 5th Street, Lumberton, NC 28358. Town of Maxton 201 McCaskill Street, Maxton, NC 28364. Town of Pembroke Town Hall, 100 South Union Chapel Road, Pembroke, NC 28372. Unincorporated Areas of Robeson County Robeson County Inspections and Zoning Department, 415 Country Club Drive, Lumberton, NC 28358. Sampson County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 11-04-6510S Preliminary Date: April 30, 2014 City of Clinton City Hall, 227 Lisbon Street, Clinton, NC 28329. Town of Autryville Town Hall, 215 South Gray Street, Autryville, NC 28318. Town of Garland Town Hall, 190 South Church Street, Garland, NC 28441. Town of Newton Grove Town Hall, 304 West Weeksdale Street, Newton Grove, NC 28366. Unincorporated Areas of Sampson County Sampson County Inspections Department, 383 County Complex Road, Clinton, NC 28328. Sampson County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 14-04-9708S Preliminary Date: August 29, 2014 Unincorporated Areas of Sampson County Sampson County Inspections Department, 383 County Complex Road, Clinton, NC 28328. Scotland County, North Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 14-04-9707S Preliminary Date: August 29, 2014 Unincorporated Areas of Scotland County Scotland County Government Administration Building, 507 West Covington Street, Laurinburg, NC 28352. Richland County, South Carolina, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 11-04-7987S Preliminary Date: April 30, 2015 City of Cayce City Hall, 1800 12th Street, Cayce, SC 29033. City of Columbia Department of Utilities and Engineering, 1136 Washington Street,
  • Columbia, SC 29201.
  • City of Forest Acres City Hall, 5209 North Trenholm Road, Forest Acres, SC 29206. Town of Arcadia Lakes Arcadia Lakes Town Hall, 6911 North Trenholm Road, Suite Two, Columbia, SC 29206. Town of Blythewood Town Hall, 171 Langford Road, Blythewood, SC 29016. Town of Eastover Town Hall, 624 Main Street, Eastover, SC 29044. Town of Irmo Town Hall, 7300 Woodrow Street, Irmo, SC 29063. Unincorporated Areas of Richland County Richland County Department of Public Works, 400 Powell Road, Columbia, SC 29203. Llano County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 14-06-4736S Preliminary Date: January 15, 2015 City of Llano City Hall, 301 West Main Street, Llano, TX 78643. Unincorporated Areas of Llano County Llano County Land Development and Permitting, 100 West Sandstone Street, Suite 200A, Llano, TX 78643.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20342 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4235-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002] Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (FEMA-4235-DR), dated August 5, 2015, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 5, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated August 5, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands resulting from Typhoon Soudelor during the period of August 1-3, 2015, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B) under the Public Assistance program in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation for the entire commonwealth, and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem appropriate subject to completion of Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs). Direct Federal assistance is authorized.

    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Stephen M. De Blasio Sr., of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    The island of Saipan for Individual Assistance.

    The islands of Rota, Saipan, and Tinian for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.

    All areas within the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20446 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4223-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002] Texas; Amendment No. 12 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-4223-DR), dated May 29, 2015, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 4, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 29, 2015.

    Bosque, Collingsworth, Colorado, Coryell, Duval, Hall, Hardin, Lubbock, McLennan, Palo Pinto, Somervell, Tom Green, Washington, and Young Counties for Public Assistance.

    Brazoria, Erath, Jim Wells, Shelby, and Smith Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20438 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4236-DR]; [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002] West Virginia; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-4236-DR), dated August 7, 2015, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective August 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated August 7, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of West Virginia resulting from severe storms, straight-line winds, flooding, landslides, and mudslides during the period of July 10-14, 2015, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of West Virginia.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Regis Leo Phelan, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the State of West Virginia have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Braxton, Clay, Lincoln, Logan, Nicholas, Roane, Webster, and Wood Counties for Public Assistance.

    All areas within the State of West Virginia are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
    W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20347 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001] Final Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.

    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.

    DATES:

    The effective date of September 30, 2015 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.

    ADDRESSES:

    The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov by the effective date indicated above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

    The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: July 28, 2015. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    I. Watershed-based studies:

    Upper Grand Watershed Community Community map repository address Daviess County, Missouri, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1404 City of Gallatin City Hall, 112 East Grand Street, Gallatin, MO 64650. Town of Lock Springs Lock Springs Town Hall, 200 Lake Street, Jamesport, MO 64648. Unincorporated Areas of Daviess County County Courthouse, 102 North Main Street, Gallatin, MO 64640. Village of Jameson Village Hall, 201 Main Street, Jameson, MO 64647.

    II. Non-watershed-based studies:

    Community Community map repository address Contra Costa County, California, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1433 City of Antioch Engineering and Development, Services Division, 200 H Street, Antioch, CA 94509. City of Hercules Engineering Department, 111 Civic Drive, Hercules, CA 94547. City of Martinez Engineering Department, 525 Henrietta Street, Martinez, CA 94553. City of Oakley Public Works and Engineering, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561. City of Pinole Public Works Department, 2131 Pear Street, Pinole, CA 94564. City of Pittsburg Engineering Record Section, City Hall, 65 Civic Avenue, Pittsburg, CA 94565. City of Richmond Engineering Division, 450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804. City of San Pablo Planning/Zoning, 13831 San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo, CA 94806. Unincorporated Areas of Contra Costa County Public Works Department, 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553. Schuyler County, Illinois, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1434 Unincorporated Areas of Schuyler County Schuyler County Highway Department, 121 Henninger Drive, Rushville, IL 62681. Kosciusko County, Indiana, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1415 City of Warsaw Warsaw Planning Department, 102 South Buffalo Street, Warsaw, IN 46580. Town of Leesburg Leesburg Town Hall, 100 East Van Buren Street, Leesburg, IN 46538. Town of Mentone Mentone Town Hall, 201 West Main Street, Mentone, IN 46539. Town of Milford Kosciusko County Courthouse, Kosciusko County Area Planning, 100 West Center Street, Warsaw, IN 46580. Town of North Webster Kosciusko County Courthouse, Kosciusko County Area Planning, 100 West Center Street, Warsaw, IN 46580. Town of Syracuse Kosciusko County Courthouse, Kosciusko County Area Planning, 100 West Center Street, Warsaw, IN 46580. Town of Winona Lake Winona Lake Town Hall, 1310 Park Avenue, Winona Lake, IN 46590. Unincorporated Areas of Kosciusko County Kosciusko County Courthouse, Kosciusko County Area Planning, 100 West Center Street, Warsaw, IN 46580. Porter County, Indiana, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1348 City of Portage Building Department, 6070 Central Avenue, Portage, IN 46368. City of Valparaiso Building Department, 166 West Lincolnway, Valparaiso, IN 46383. Town of Beverly Shores Town Hall, 500 South Broadway, Beverly Shores, IN 46301. Town of Burns Harbor Building Department, 1240 North Boo Road, Burns Harbor, IN 46304. Town of Chesterton Building Department, 1490 Broadway, Suite 5, Chesterton, IN 46304. Town of Dune Acres Building Department, 1 East Road, Dune Acres, IN 46304. Town of Hebron Building Department, 106 East Sigler Street, Hebron, IN 46341. Town of Ogden Dunes Building Department, 115 Hillcrest Road, Ogden Dunes, IN 46368. Town of Porter Building Department, 303 Franklin Street, 2nd Floor, Porter, IN 46304. Unincorporated Areas of Porter County Porter County Plan Commission, 155 Indiana Avenue, Valparaiso, IN 46383. Kandiyohi County, Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1440 City of Lake Lillian City Hall, 531 Lakeview Street, Lake Lillian, MN 56253. City of New London City Hall, 20 First Avenue Southwest, New London, MN 56273. City of Raymond City Office, 208 Cofield Street, Raymond, MN 56282. City of Regal Mayor's Residence, 14465 293rd Avenue Northeast, Belgrade, MN 56312. City of Spicer City Hall, 217 Hillcrest Avenue, Spicer, MN 56288. City of Willmar City Office Building, 333 6th Street Southwest, Willmar, MN 56201. Unincorporated Areas of Kandiyohi County Kandiyohi County Office Building, 400 Benson Avenue Southwest, Willmar, MN 56201. Norman County, Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1311 City of Ada 15 East 4th Street, Ada, MN 56510. City of Borup 203 Main Avenue, Borup, MN 56519. City of Halstad 404 5th Avenue East, Halstad, MN 56548. City of Hendrum 308 Main Street East, Hendrum, MN 56550. City of Perley 205 Main Street, Perley, MN 56574. City of Shelly 101 West McKinley Avenue, Shelly, MN 56581. City of Twin Valley 107 2nd Street SW, Twin Valley, MN 56584. Unincorporated Areas of Norman County 16 rd Avenue East, Ada, MN 56510. Strafford County, New Hampshire (All Jurisdictions) Docket No.: FEMA-B-1415 City of Dover City Office, 288 Central Avenue, Dover, NH 03820. Town of Durham Town Office, 15 Newmarket Road, Durham, NH 03824. Town of Madbury Town Hall, 13 Town Hall Road, Madbury, NH 03823. Town of Rollinsford Town Office, 667 Main Street, Rollinsford, NH 03869. Washington County, Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions) Docket No.: FEMA-B-1431 Borough of Allenport Borough Building, 1850 Main Street, Allenport, PA 15412. Borough of Beallsville Borough Building, 82A South Street, Beallsville, PA 15313. Borough of Bentleyville Borough Building, 900 Main Street, Suite 101, Bentleyville, PA 15314. Borough of Burgettstown Borough Administration Building, 1509 Main Street, Burgettstown, PA 15021. Borough of California Borough Zoning Office, 225 Third Street, California, PA 15419. Borough of Canonsburg Borough Building, 68 East Pike Street, Canonsburg, PA 15317. Borough of Centerville Centerville Borough Office, 100 East End Road, Brownsville, PA 15417. Borough of Charleroi Borough Municipal Building, 334 Fallowfield Avenue, Charleroi, PA 15022. Borough of Coal Center Borough Building, 132 Water Street, Coal Center, PA 15423. Borough of Cokeburg Borough Building, 99 Washington Street, Cokeburg, PA 15324. Borough of Deemston Deemston Borough Municipal Building, 1622 Morey Road, Fredericktown, PA 15333. Borough of Donora Borough Building, 603 Meldon Avenue, Donora, PA 15033. Borough of Dunlevy Borough Building, 2 Walnut Street, Dunlevy, PA 15432. Borough of Elco Borough Building, 510 Route 88, Elco, PA 15434. Borough of Ellsworth Borough Building, 23 Main Street, Ellsworth, PA 15331. Borough of Finleyville Borough Building, 3515 Washington Avenue, Finleyville, PA 15332. Borough of Green Hills Green Hills Borough Office, 2755 Park Avenue, Washington, PA 15301. Borough of Houston Borough Building, 42 Western Avenue, Houston, PA 15342. Borough of Long Branch Long Branch Borough Building, 440 Mount Tabor Road, Coal Center, PA 15423. Borough of Marianna Borough Building, 1 Procasky Road, Marianna, PA 15345. Borough of Midway Borough Office, 304 Noblestown Road, Midway, PA 15060. Borough of New Eagle Borough Building, 157 Main Street, New Eagle, PA 15067. Borough of North Charleroi Borough Building, 555 Walnut Avenue, North Charleroi, PA 15022. Borough of Roscoe Borough Municipal Building, 500 Arthur Avenue, Roscoe, PA 15477. Borough of Speers Speers Borough Hall, 300 Phillips Street, Charleroi, PA 15022. Borough of Stockdale Borough Office, 402 Locust Street, Stockdale, PA 15483. Borough of Twilight Twilight Borough Building, 8 Chestnut Road, Charleroi, PA 15022. Borough of West Brownsville Municipal Building, 235 Main Street, West Brownsville, PA 15417. Borough of West Middletown Borough Office, 18 West Main Street, West Middletown, PA 15379. City of Monongahela City Hall, 449 West Main Street, Monongahela, PA 15063. City of Washington City Hall, 55 West Maiden Street, Washington, PA 15301. Township of Amwell Amwell Township Municipal Building, 885 Amity Ridge Road, Amity, PA 15311. Township of Blaine Blaine Township Municipal Building, 40 Main Street, Taylorstown, PA 15365. Township of Buffalo Buffalo Township Office, 400 Buffalo Center Lane, Washington, PA 15301. Township of Canton Canton Township Municipal Building, 655 Grove Avenue, Washington, PA 15301. Township of Carroll Carroll Township Hall, 130 Baird Street, Monongahela, PA 15063. Township of Cecil Township Office, 3599 Millers Run Road, Suite 101, Cecil, PA 15321. Township of Chartiers Chartiers Township Municipal Center, Buccaneer Drive, Houston, PA 15342. Township of Cross Creek Cross Creek Township Municipal Building, 28 Clark Avenue, Avella, PA 15312. Township of Donegal Donegal Township Municipal Office, 34 North Liberty Street, West Alexander, PA 15376. Township of East Bethlehem East Bethlehem Township Office, 36 Water Street, Fredericktown, PA 15333. Township of East Finley East Finley Township Office Building, 1394 East Finley Drive, Claysville, PA 15323. Township of Fallowfield Fallowfield Township Building, 9 Memorial Drive, Charleroi, PA 15022. Township of Hanover Hanover Township Hall, 11 Municipal Drive, Burgettstown, PA 15021. Township of Hopewell Hopewell Township Building, 20 Parkview Road, Avella, PA 15312. Township of Independence Independence Township Building, 34 Campbell Street, Avella, PA 15312. Township of Jefferson Jefferson Township Building, 670 Cedar Grove Road, Burgettstown, PA 15021. Township of Morris Morris Township Municipal Building, 473 Sparta Road, Prosperity, PA 15329. Township of Mount Pleasant Mount Pleasant Township Building, 31 McCarrell Road, Hickory, PA 15340. Township of North Bethlehem North Bethlehem Township Municipal Building, 2178 East National Pike, Scenery Hill, PA 15360. Township of North Franklin North Franklin Township Municipal Building, 620 Franklin Farms Road, Washington, PA 15301. Township of North Strabane North Strabane Township Municipal Building, 1929 Route 519 South, Canonsburg, PA 15317. Township of Nottingham Nottingham Township Municipal Building, 909 Sugar Run Road Eighty Four, PA 15330. Township of Peters Peters Township Municipal Building, 610 East McMurray Road, McMurray, PA 15317. Township of Robinson Robinson Township Office, 8400 Noblestown Road, McDonald, PA 15057. Township of Smith Smith Township Building, 1848 Smith Township State Road, Slovan, PA 15078. Township of Somerset Somerset Township Municipal Building, 615 Vanceville Road, Eighty Four, PA 15330. Township of South Franklin South Franklin Township Building, 100 Municipal Road, Washington, PA 15301. Township of South Strabane South Strabane Township Building, 550 Washington Road, Washington, PA 15301. Township of Union Union Township Municipal Building, 3904 Finleyville-Elrama Road, Finleyville, PA 15332. Township of West Bethlehem West Bethlehem Township Municipal Building, 247 Jefferson Avenue, Marianna, PA 15345. Township of West Finley West Finley Township Office, 401 Beham Ridge Road, West Alexander, PA 15376. Township of West Pike Run West Pike Run Township Municipal Building, 238 Pike Run Drive, Daisytown, PA 15427.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20439 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension, Without Change, of an Existing Information Collection; Comment Request ACTION:

    60-Day notice of information collection for review; Form No. I-515A; Notice to Student or Exchange Visitor; OMB Control No. 1653-0037.

    The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE), is submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until October 19, 2015.

    Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Scott Elmore, Forms Management Office, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, 801 I Street NW., Mailstop 5800, Washington, DC 20536-5800.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Notice to Student or Exchange Visitor.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection: (No. Form I-515A); U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or Households. When an academic student (F-1), vocational student (M-1), exchange visitor (J-1), or dependent(F-2, M-2 or J-2) is admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant alien under section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), he or she is required to have certain documentation. If the student or exchange visitor or dependent is missing documentation, he or she is provided with the Form I-515A, Notice to Student or Exchange Visitor. The Form I-515A provides a list of the documentation the student or exchange visitor or dependent will need to provide to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) office within 30 days of admission.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: 10,701 responses at 10 minutes (0.1667 hours) per response.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 1,776. annual burden hours.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Scott Elmore, Program Manager, Forms Management Office, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20396 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5832-N-09] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Loan Guarantee Recovery Fund Established Pursuant to the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 AGENCY:

    Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected] for a copy of the proposed forms or other available information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jackie L. Williams, Ph.D., Director, Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email [email protected] telephone 202-402-4611. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Loan Guarantee Recovery Fund established pursuant to the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996.

    OMB Approval Number: 2506-0159.

    Type of Request Extension of currently approved collection.

    Form Numbers: HUD-40076-LGA, SF-424.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The purpose of this submission is for the application of the Section 4 Loan Guarantee Recovery Fund loan guarantee process. Under this program, HUD provides loan guarantees to lending institutions that provide loans to houses of worship that have been the victims of hate crime or arson. Under the Loan Guarantee Agreement, the lending institution is required to provide repayment information to HUD on a monthly basis to ensure the lender is repaying the loan within the guidelines of the Loan Guarantee Agreement.

    Respondents (i.e. affected public): 36.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 36.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 432.

    Frequency of Response: 24.

    Average Hours per Response: 2.

    Total Estimated Burdens: 864.

    Note: Preparer of this notice may substitute the chart for everything beginning with estimated number of respondents above:

    Information collection Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of response Responses per annum Burden hour per response Annual burden hours Hourly cost per response Annual cost
    Reports 18 12 216 2 432 $25 $10,800 Recordkeeping 18 12 216 2 432 $25 10,800 Totals 36 24 432 864 21,600
    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comments in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20487 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NRNHL-18873; PPWOCRADI0, PCU00RP14.R50000] National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions

    Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before July 18, 2015. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation. Comments may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service,1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by September 3, 2015. 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: July 21, 2015. J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program. MISSOURI Jackson County Interstate Bakeries Corporation Headquarters, 12 E. Armour Blvd., Kansas City, 15000553 St. Louis Independent City Central Institute for the Deaf Building, 800 S. Euclid Ave., St. Louis (Independent City), 15000554 Dutchtown South Historic District, Bounded by S. Grand Blvd., Delor & Liberty Sts., Alabama, Virginia & Bingham Aves., St. Louis (Independent City), 15000555 NEW YORK Monroe County Chili—West Historic District, 15-17 Ardmore, 5-75 Appleton, 14-48 Darien, 22-56 Hancock, 41-146 Lozier & 20-99 Somerset Sts., 50-432 Chili Ave., Rochester, 15000556 Sibley—Elmdorf Historic District, 23-405 Aberdeen, 20-324 Aldine, 447-551 Genesee, 157-320 Melrose, 187-325 Roslyn & 2-242 Trafalgar Sts., Rochester, 15000557 NORTH CAROLINA Guilford County Pickett Cotton Mills, 1200 Redding Dr., High Point, 15000558 OHIO Cuyahoga County Villa San Bernardo Historic District, 1160 Broadway Ave., Bedford, 15000559 Woodland—Larchmere Commercial Historic District, 12019-13165 Larchmere, 2618 N. Moreland, Cleveland, 15000560 Franklin County South High School, 345 E. Deshler Ave., Columbus, 15000561 Hamilton County Bon Air Flats, (Apartment Buildings in Ohio Urban Centers, 1870-1970 MPS) 615 Maple Ave., Cincinnati, 15000562 Mohawk Place Historic District, 241-290 McMicken Ave., 2009-2024 Mohawk Pl., 218-256 Mohawk St., 2026 Central Pkwy., Cincinnati, 15000563 SOUTH DAKOTA Hutchinson County First National Bank, Freeman, 394 S. Main St., Freeman, 15000564 Jerauld County Harmony Friends Church, 225th St. & 372nd Ave., Wessington Springs, 15000565 Minnehaha County Terrace Park and Japanese Gardens, 1100 W. 4th St., Sioux Falls, 15000566
    [FR Doc. 2015-20455 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-51-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-NERO-GATE-18926; PPNEGATEB0, PPMVSCS1Z.Y00000] Amended Meeting Schedule for the Gateway National Recreation Area Fort Hancock 21st Century Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Amended notice of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 1-16), notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting schedule of the Gateway National Recreation Area Fort Hancock 21st Century Federal Advisory Committee September 11, 2015, meeting to September 18, 2015, at the Monmouth County Library, Eastern Branch, located at 1001 Route 35, Shrewsbury, New Jersey 07702 which was published in the Federal Register, Vol. 80, April 2, 2015, p. 17475.

    The September 18, 2015, meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. (EASTERN), with a public comment period at 11:30 a.m. (EASTERN). This meeting is open to the public. The October 23, 2015, meeting announced in the same notice, is cancelled.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Warren, External Affairs Officer, Gateway National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook Unit, 26 Hudson Road, Highlands, New Jersey 07732, 917-829-0425, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Committee was established (Federal Register, Vol. 77, April 3, 2012, p. 20046) to provide advice to the Secretary of the Interior, through the Director of the National Park Service, on the development of a reuse plan and on matters relating to future uses of certain buildings at the Fort Hancock and Sandy Hook Proving Ground National Historic Landmark which lie within the Gateway National Recreation Area.

    The new Committee Web site, http://www.forthancock21.org, includes summaries from all prior meetings. All Committee meetings are open to the public.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Alma Ripps, Chief, Office of Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20441 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement [Docket ID BSEE-2015-0008; OMB Control Number 1014-0005; 14XE1700DX EEEE500000 EX1SF0000.DAQ000] Information Collection Activities: Relief or Reduction in Royalty Rates; Submitted for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    30-day Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is notifying the public that we have submitted to OMB an information collection request (ICR) to renew approval of the paperwork requirements in the regulations under Relief or Reduction in Royalty Rates. This notice also provides the public a second opportunity to comment on the revised paperwork burden of these regulatory requirements.

    DATES:

    You must submit comments by September 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments by either fax (202) 395-5806 or email ([email protected]) directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior (1014-0005). Please provide a copy of your comments to BSEE by any of the means below.

    • Electronically go to http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter BSEE-2015-0008 then click search. Follow the instructions to submit public comments and view all related materials. We will post all comments.

    • Email [email protected], fax (703) 787-1546, or mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the Interior; Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement; Regulations and Standards Branch; ATTN: Cheryl Blundon; 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, VA 20166. Please reference ICR 1014-0005 in your comment and include your name and return address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cheryl Blundon, Regulations and Standards Branch, (703) 787-1607, to request additional information about this ICR. To see a copy of the entire ICR submitted to OMB, go to http://www.reginfo.gov (select Information Collection Review, Currently Under Review).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: 30 CFR 203, Relief or Reduction in Royalty Rates.

    OMB Control Number: 1014-0005.

    Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1337, as amended by the OCS Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (DWRRA), Public Law 104-58 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-058, gives the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) the authority to reduce or eliminate royalty or any net profit share specified in OCS oil and gas leases to promote increased production. The DWRRA also authorized the Secretary to suspend royalties when necessary to promote development or recovery of marginal resources on producing or non-producing leases in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) west of 87 degrees, 30 minutes West longitude.

    Section 302 of the DWRRA provides that new production from a lease in existence on November 28, 1995, in a water depth of at least 200 meters, and in the GOM west of 87 degrees, 30 minutes West longitude qualifies for royalty suspension in certain situations. To grant a royalty suspension, the Secretary must determine that the new production or development would not be economic in the absence of royalty relief. The Secretary must then determine the volume of production on which no royalty would be due in order to make the new production from the lease economically viable. This determination is done on a case-by-case basis. Production from leases in the same water depth and area issued after November 28, 2000, also can qualify for royalty suspension in addition to any that may be included in their lease terms.

    In addition, Federal policy and statute require us to recover the cost of services that confer special benefits to identifiable non-Federal recipients. The Independent Offices Appropriation Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25, and the Omnibus Appropriations Bill (Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, April 26, 1996) authorize the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) to collect these fees to reimburse us for the cost to process applications or assessments.

    Regulations at 30 CFR part 203 implement these statutes and policy and require respondents to pay a fee to request royalty relief. OMB approved the information collection burden under this collection 1014-0005. Section 203.3(a) states that, “We will specify the necessary fees for each of the types of royalty-relief applications and possible BSEE audits in a Notice to Lessees. We will periodically update the fees to reflect changes in costs, as well as provide other information necessary to administer royalty relief.”

    Responses are mandatory and are required to obtain or retain a benefit. No questions of a sensitive nature are asked. BSEE will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and DOI's implementing regulations (43 CFR 2) and under regulations at 30 CFR 203.61, How do I assess my chances for getting relief? and 30 CFR 250.197, Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection.

    The information collected under this subpart is used to make decisions on the economic viability of leases requesting a suspension or elimination of royalty or net profit share. These decisions have enormous monetary impact on both the lessee and the Federal Government. Royalty relief can lead to increased production of natural gas and oil, creating profits for lessees, and royalty and tax revenues for the Federal Government that they might not otherwise receive. We could not make an informed decision without the collection of information required by 30 CFR part 203.

    Frequency: On occasion and as required by regulations.

    Description of Respondents: Potential respondents comprise OCS Federal oil, gas, or sulphur lessees and/or operators.

    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden: The estimated annual hour burden for this information collection is a total of 724 hours. The following chart details the individual components and estimated hour burdens. In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden.

    Burden Table Citation 30 CFR 203 and related NTL(s) Reporting or recordkeeping requirement + Application/audit fees (rounded) Hour burden Average number of
  • annual responses
  • Annual burden hours
  • (rounded)
  • 2; 3; 4; 70 These sections contain general references to submitting reports, applications, requests, copies, demonstrating qualifications, for BSEE approval—burdens covered under specific requirements 0 Royalty Relief for Ultra-Deep Gas Wells and Deep Gas Wells on Shallow Water Leases 31(c) Request a refund of or recoup royalties from qualified ultra-deep wells 1 1 request 1 35(a); 44(a); 47 Notify BSEE of intent to begin drilling and depth of target 1 2 notifications 2 35(c), (d); 44(b), (d), (e) Notify BSEE that production has begun, request confirmation of the size of RSV—provide any/all supporting documentation 2 2 notifications 4 35(d); 44(e) Request to extend the deadline for beginning production with required supporting documentation 4 1 request 4 41(d) Request a refund of or recoup royalties from qualified wells >200 meters but <400 meters 1 1 request 1 35(a); 44(a); 47(a) Notify BSEE of intent to begin drilling 1 2 notifications 2 35(c), (d); 44(b), (d), (e) Notify BSEE that production has begun, request confirmation of the size of RSV, provide any/all supporting documentation (i.e., request to extend deadline, credible activity schedule, etc) 2 2 notifications 4 46 Provide data from well to confirm and attest well drilled was an unsuccessful certified well with supporting documentation and request supplement (RSS) 8 1 response 8 49(b) Notify BSEE or decision to exercise option to replace one set of deep gas royalty suspension terms for another set of such terms BSEE SOL requires that this reg text stay for legacy purposes only. Last time any respondent could use was 2004; hence, no burden. Subtotal 8 responses 20 End of Life and Special Royalty Relief * 51; 83; 84; NTL Application—leases that generate earnings that cannot sustain continued production (end-of-life lease); required supporting documentation; include payment confirmation receipt 100 1 application every 10 years 10 application 1/10 × $8,000 = $800 *; audit 1/10 × $12,500 = $1,250 52 Demonstrate ability to qualify/requalify for royalty relief or to re-qualify 1 1 response 1 55 Renounce relief arrangement (end-of-life) (seldom, if ever will be used; minimal burden to prepare letter) 1 1 letter every 10 years 1 80; NTL Application—apart from formal programs for royalty relief for marginal producing lease (Special Case Relief); required supporting documentation; include payment confirmation receipt 250 1 application every 10 years 25 application 1/10 × $8,000 ** = $800 audit 1/10 × $12,500 = $1,250 80; NTL Application—apart from formal programs for royalty relief for marginal expansion project or marginal non-producing lease (Special Case Relief); required supporting documentation; include payment confirmation receipt 1,000 1 application every 10 years 100 application 1/10 × $19,500 ** = $1,950; audit 1/10 × $18,750 = $1,875 Subtotal 2 responses (rounded) 137 $7,925 fees CPA Report 81; 83-90; 63 Required reports; extension justification Burden included with applications 0 1 CPA report × $45,000/10 each report = $4,500 Subtotal 1 response $4,500 Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (DWRAA) 61; 62; 64; 65; 71; 83; 85-89; NTL Application—preview assessment (seldom if ever will be used as applicants generally opt for binding determination by BSEE instead) and required supporting documentation; include payment confirmation receipt 900 1 application every 10 years 90 application 1/10 × $28,500 = $2,850 62; 64; 65; 71; 83; 85-89; NTL Application—leases in designated areas of GOM deep water acquired in lease sale before 11/28/95 or after 11/28/00 and are producing (deep water expansion project); required supporting documentation; include payment confirmation receipt 2,000 1 application every 10 years 200 application 1/10 × $19,500 = $1,950 62; 64; 65; 203.71; 81; 83; 85-89; NTL Application—leases in designated areas of deep water GOM, acquired in lease sale before 11/28/95 or after 11/28/00 that have not produced (pre-act or post-2000 deep water leases); required supporting documentation; include payment confirmation receipt 2,000 1 application every 10 years 200 application 1/10 × $34,000 = $3,400 *; audit 1/10 × $37,500 = $3,750 69; NTL Application—short form to add or assign pre-Act lease and required supporting documentation; include payment confirmation receipt 40 1 application every 10 years 4 application 1/10 × $1,000 = $100 70; 81; 90; 76(c), (e); NTL Submit post-production development report; extension justification. # Reserve right to audit (1 audit every 10 years) after production starts to confirm cost estimates of the application; include payment confirmation receipt 50 1 report * every 10 years 5 # 1 audit 1/10 × $18,750 = $1,875 74; 75; 76(d); NTL Redetermination and required supporting documentation; include payment confirmation receipt 500 1 redetermination every 10 years 50 application 1/10 × $16,000 = $1,600 * 77 Renounce relief arrangement (deep water) (seldom, if ever will be used; minimal burden to prepare letter) 1 1 letter every 10 years 1 79 Request reconsideration of BSEE field designation This was a regulatory requirement for leases issued prior to 1995 0 79(c); 76(b) Request extension of deadline to start construction 2 1 request every 10 years 1 81; 83-90 Required reports; extension justification Burden included with applications 0 Subtotal 3 responses 551 $15,525 fees Recordkeeping 81(d) Retain supporting cost records for post-production development/fabrication reports (records retained as usual/customary business practice; minimal burden to make available at BSEE request) 8 2 recordkeepers 16 Subtotal 2 recordkeepers 16 Total Annual Burden 16 Responses 724 $27,950 Fees + In the future, BSEE may require electronic filing of some submissions. * CPA certification expense burden also imposed on applicant. ** These applications currently do not have a set fee since they are done on a case-by-case basis. Note: Applications include numerous items such as: Transmittal letters, letters of request, modifications to applications, reapplications, etc.

    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Non-Hour Cost Burden: We have identified several non-hour cost burdens associated with the collection of information for a total of $27,950.

    Under § 203.3, we charge lessees (respondents) applying for royalty relief an amount that covers the cost of processing their applications and auditing financial data when necessary to determine the proposed development's economic situation. As previously discussed, these fees may be revised as necessary to recover our costs in processing royalty relief applications.

    This submission includes these audits and their associated fees. Since there have been no applications approved in the last 14 years under our formal programs for deepwater royalty relief or end of life, the estimated number of submittals is one every 10 years; but we include the audit and their respective fees due to the potential situation arising.

    We estimate this cost burden to be approximately $23,450 annually. Refer to the burden table for a breakdown.

    Under § 203.81, a report prepared by an independent certified public accountant (CPA) must accompany the application and post-production report (expansion project, short form, and preview assessment applications are excluded). The OCS Lands Act applications will require this report only once; the DWRRA applications will require this report at two stages—with the application and post-production development report for successful applicants. We estimate an average cost for a report is $45,000 and that one CPA certification, during the information collection extension period, will be necessary if the applications are approved. This annual cost burden is $45,000/10 years = $4,500.

    Therefore, the total of the two burdens is estimated at $27,950. We have not identified any other non-hour cost burdens associated with this collection of information.

    Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.,) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.

    Comments: Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.,) requires each agency “ . . . to provide notice . . . and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information . . . ” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the collection is necessary or useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of technology.

    To comply with the public consultation process, on May 22, 2015, we published a Federal Register notice (80 FR 29740) announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval. The notice provided the required 60-day comment period. In addition, § 203.5 provides the OMB Control Number for the information collection requirements imposed by the 30 CFR 203 regulations. The regulation also informs the public that they may comment at any time on the collections of information and provides the address to which they should send comments. We received no comments in response to the Federal Register notice, nor did we receive any unsolicited comments.

    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: August 4, 2015. Robert W. Middleton, Deputy Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20369 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-VH-P
    JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES Hearings of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committees on the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence

    Federal Register citation of previous announcement: 80 FR 48120.

    AGENCY:

    Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committees on the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy, Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence.

    ACTION:

    Revised Notice of Proposed Amendments and Open Hearings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Advisory Committees on the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence have proposed amendments to the following rules: Bankruptcy Rules 1001 and 1006. Evidence Rules 803 and 902.

    The text of the proposed rules amendments and the accompanying Committee Notes can be found at the United States Federal Courts' Web site at: http://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/proposed-amendments-published-public-comment.

    All written comments and suggestions with respect to the proposed amendments may be submitted on or after the opening of the period for public comment on August 14, 2015, but no later than February 16, 2016. Written comments must be submitted electronically, following the instructions provided at the Web site address provided above. In accordance with established procedures, all comments submitted are available for public inspection.

    Public hearings are scheduled to be held on these proposed amendments as follows:

    • Bankruptcy Rule 1006 in Washington, DC, on January 22, 2016, and in Pasadena, CA, on January 29, 2016;

    • Rules of Evidence 803 and 902 in Phoenix, AZ, on January 6, 2016, and in Washington, DC, on February 12, 2016.

    Those wishing to testify should contact the Secretary at the address below in writing at least 30 days before the hearing.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE., Suite 7-240, Washington, DC 20544, Telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, Judicial Conference of the United States.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20254 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1110-0052] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change, of a Previously Approved Collection Applicant Information Form (1-783) AGENCY:

    Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    60-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, 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 of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 19, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Gerry Lynn Brovey, Supervisory Information Liaison Specialist, FBI, CJIS, Resources Management Section, Administrative Unit, Module C-2, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306 (facsimile: 304-625-5093).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of this Information Collection

    1 Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    2 The Title of the Form/Collection: Applicant Information Form.

    3 The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: 1-783.

    4 Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals. This collection is necessary for individuals to request a copy of their personal identification record to review it or to obtain a change, correction, or an update to the record.

    5 An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: Annually, the FBI receives 309,345 identification requests, therefore there are 309,345 respondents. The form requires 5 minutes to complete.

    6 An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 25,779 total annual burden hours associated with this collection.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20469 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2011-0862] Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

    ACTION:

    Request for public comments.

    SUMMARY:

    OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) Standard (29 CFR 1910.120).

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments.

    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.

    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service: When using this method, you must submit your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2011-0862, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. 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. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the OSHA docket number (OSHA-2011-0862) for the Information Collection Request (ICR). 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. For further information on submitting comments see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download from the Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You also may contact Theda Kenney at the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).

    The HAZWOPER Standard specifies a number of collection of information (paperwork) requirements. Employers can use the information collected under the HAZWOPER rule to develop the various programs the Standard requires and to ensure that their workers are trained properly about the safety and health hazards associated with hazardous waste operations and emergency response to hazardous waste releases. OSHA will use the records developed in response to this Standard to determine adequate compliance with the Standard's safety and health provisions. The employer's failure to collect and distribute the information required in this standard will affect significantly OSHA's effort to control and reduce injuries and fatalities. Such failure would also be contrary to the direction Congress provided in The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA).

    II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

    • Whether the proposed information collection 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 costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.

    III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extend the approval of the collection of information (paperwork) requirements contained in the standard on Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) (29 CFR 1910.120). The Agency is requesting an adjustment decrease of 988 burden hours from the previous submission (from 262,539 hours to 261,551 hours). This adjustment is due primarily to a slight decline in the number of emergency response organizations from 30,125 to 30,052 (a decline of 73 organizations).

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Title: Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) Standard (29 CFR 1910.120).

    OMB Control Number: 1218-0202.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits; Not-for-profit organizations; Federal Government; State, Local, or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 30,052.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Total Responses: 1,440,759.

    Average Time per Response: Time per response varies from one minute (.02 hour) to maintain a certification record to 23 hours to prepare a written safety and health program.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 261,551.

    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $3,124,960.

    IV. Public Participation—Submission of Comments on This Notice and Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile; or (3) by hard copy. All comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for this ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0862). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES). The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them to your comments.

    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).

    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as their social security number and date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download from this Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's “User Tips” link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available from the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

    V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on August 13, 2015. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20470 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of Workers' Compensation Programs Proposed Extension of Existing Collection; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Pharmacy Billing Requirements. A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Ms. Yoon Ferguson, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Room S-3323, Washington, DC 20210, telephone/fax (202) 354-9647, Email [email protected] Please use only one method of transmission for comments (mail, fax, or Email).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background: The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) is the agency responsible for administration of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. 8101 et seq., the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA), 30 U.S.C. 901 et seq., and the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA), 42 U.S.C. 7384 et seq. All three of these statutes require that OWCP pay for covered medical treatment provided to beneficiaries; this medical treatment can include medicinal drugs dispensed by pharmacies. In order to determine whether amounts billed for drugs are appropriate, OWCP must receive the required data elements, including the name of the patient/beneficiary, the National Drug Code (NDC) number of the drugs prescribed, the quantity provided, the prescription number and the date the prescription was filled. The regulations implementing these statutes require the collection of information needed to enable OWCP to determine if bills for drugs submitted directly by pharmacies, or reimbursement requests submitted by claimants, should be paid. There is no standardized paper form for submission of the billing information collected in this Information Collection Request (ICR). Over the past several years, almost all pharmacy bills submitted to OWCP have been submitted electronically using one of the industry-wide standard formats for the electronic transmission of billing data through nationwide data clearinghouses devised by the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs (NCPDP). None of the electronic billing formats have been designed by or provided by OWCP; they are billing formats commonly accepted by other Federal programs and in the private health insurance industry for drugs. Nonetheless, the three programs (FECA, BLBA and EEOICPA) provide instructions for the submission of necessary pharmacy bill data elements in provider manuals distributed or made available to all pharmacies enrolled in the programs. This information collection is currently approved for use through January 31, 2016.

    II. Review Focus: The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:

    * Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    * evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    * enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    * minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    III. Current Actions: The Department of Labor is seeking public comments on the extension of this currently approved information collection.

    Type of Review: Extension.

    Agency: Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.

    Title: Pharmacy Billing Requirements.

    OMB Number: 1240-0050.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

    Total Respondents: 4,344.

    Total Responses: 1,453,300.

    Time per Response: 1-5 Minutes.

    Frequency: On Occasion.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 24,421.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): $0.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Yoon Ferguson, Agency Clearance Officer, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20457 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-CR-P
    NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION [NARA-2015-059] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    NARA gives public notice that it has submitted to OMB for approval the information collection described in this notice. We invite you to comment on the proposed information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    OMB must receive written comments at the address below on or before September 18, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to Mr. Nicholas A. Fraser, Desk Officer for NARA by mail to Office of Management and Budget; New Executive Office Building; Washington, DC 20503; by fax to 202-395-5167; or by email to [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Direct requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information collection and supporting statement to Tamee Fechhelm by phone at 301-837-1694 or by fax at 301-713-7409.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), NARA invites the public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. We published a notice of proposed collection for this information collection on June 9, 2015 (80 FR 32615 and 32616); we received no comments. NARA has therefore submitted the described information collection to OMB for approval.

    In response to this notice, comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for NARA to properly perform its functions; (b) NARA's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection and its accuracy; (c) ways NARA could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information it collects; (d) ways NARA could minimize the burden on respondents of collecting the information, including the through information technology; and (e) whether the collection affects small businesses. In this notice, NARA solicits comments concerning the following information collection:

    1. Title: Independent Researcher Listing Application

    OMB number: 3095-0054.

    Agency form number: NA Form 14115.

    Type of review: Regular.

    Affected public: Individuals or households.

    Estimated number of respondents: 458.

    Estimated time per response: 10 minutes.

    Frequency of response: On occasion.

    Estimated total annual burden hours: 76.

    Abstract: To accommodate both the public and NARA staff, the Customer Services Division (RD-C1) of the National Archives maintains a listing of independent researchers for the public. We make use of various lists of independent researchers who perform freelance research for hire in the Washington, DC, area and send them upon request to researchers who cannot travel to the metropolitan area to conduct their own research. All interested independent researchers provide their contact information via this form. Collecting contact and other key information from each independent researcher and providing such information to the public when deemed appropriate will only increase business. This form is not a burden in any way to any independent researcher who voluntarily submits a completed form. Inclusion on the list will not be viewed or advertised as an endorsement by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The listing is compiled and disseminated as a service to the public.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Swarnali Haldar, Executive for Information Services/CIO.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20488 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Renew an Information Collection for the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program AGENCY:

    National Science Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to request clearance of this collection. In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action plan for information collection.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this notice must be received by October 19, 2015 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

    For Additional Information Or Comments: Contact Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230; telephone (703) 292-7556; or send email to [email protected] Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, which is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year (including federal holidays). You also may obtain a copy of the data collection instrument and instructions from Ms. Plimpton.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title Of Collection: Grantee Reporting Requirements for the Graduate Research Fellowship Program.

    OMB Number: 3145-0223.

    Expiration Date of Approval: December 31, 2015.

    Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to renew an information collection.

    Abstract

    Proposed Project: The purpose of the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program is to help ensure the vitality and diversity of the scientific and engineering workforce of the United States. The program recognizes and supports outstanding graduate students who are pursuing research-based master's and doctoral degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and in STEM education. The GRFP provides three years of support, to be used during a five-year fellowship period, for the graduate education of individuals who have demonstrated their potential for significant research achievements in STEM and STEM education.

    The Graduate Research Fellowship Program uses several sources of information in assessing and documenting program performance and impact. These sources include reports from program evaluation, the GRFP Committee of Visitors, and data compiled from the applications. In addition, GRFP Fellows submit annual activity reports to NSF.

    The GRFP Completion report is proposed as a continuing component of the annual reporting requirement for the program. This report, submitted by the GRFP Institution, certifies the completion status of Fellows at the institution (e.g., in progress, completed, graduated, transferred, or withdrawn). The existing Completion Report, Grants Roster Report, and the Program Expense Report comprise the GRFP Annual Reporting requirements from the Grantee GRFP institution. Through submission of the Completion Report to NSF GRFP institutions certify the current status of all GRFP Fellows at the institution as either: In Progress, Graduated, Transferred, or Withdrawn. For Graduate Fellows with Graduated status, the graduation date is a required reporting element. Collection of this information allows the program to obtain information on the current status of Fellows, the number and/or percentage of Graduate Fellowship recipients who complete a science or engineering graduate degree, and an estimate of time to degree completion. The report must be certified and submitted by the institution's designated Coordinating Official (CO) annually.

    Use of the Information: The completion report data provides NSF with accurate Fellow information regarding completion of the Fellows' graduate programs. The data is used by NSF in its assessment of the impact of its investments in the GRFP, and informs its program management.

    Estimate of Burden: Overall average time will be 15 minutes per Fellow (8,250 Fellows) for a total of 2,063 hours for all institutions with Fellows. An estimate for institutions with 12 or fewer Fellows will be 1 hour, institutions with 12-48 fellows will be 4 hours, and institutions over 48 Fellows will be 10 hours.

    Respondents: Academic institutions with NSF Graduate Fellows (GRFP Institutions).

    Estimated Number of Responses per Report: One from each of the 271 current GRFP institutions.

    Comments: Comments are invited on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance and function of the National Science Foundation, including whether the information shall be useful; (b) the accuracy of NSF's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the utility and clarity of the information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond and (e) the usefulness of the data to institutions.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20471 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    National Science Foundation

    ACTION:

    Submission for OMB review; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 26099, and no comments were received. NSF is forwarding the proposed renewal submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance simultaneously with the publication of this second notice. The full submission may be found at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for National Science Foundation, 725—17th Street NW. Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send email to [email protected]. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, which is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year (including federal holidays).

    Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling 703-292-7556.

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title Of Collection: Grantee Reporting Requirements for Science and Technology Centers (STC): Integrative Partnerships

    OMB Number: 3145-0194

    Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to extend an information collection.

    Abstract:

    Proposed Project:

    The Science and Technology Centers (STC): Integrative Partnerships Program supports innovation in the integrative conduct of research, education and knowledge transfer. Science and Technology Centers build intellectual and physical infrastructure within and between disciplines, weaving together knowledge creation, knowledge integration, and knowledge transfer. STCs conduct world-class research through partnerships of academic institutions, national laboratories, industrial organizations, and/or other public/private entities. New knowledge thus created is meaningfully linked to society.

    STCs enable and foster excellent education, integrate research and education, and create bonds between learning and inquiry so that discovery and creativity more fully support the learning process. STCs capitalize on diversity through participation in center activities and demonstrate leadership in the involvement of groups underrepresented in science and engineering.

    Centers selected will be required to submit annual reports on progress and plans, which will be used as a basis for performance review and determining the level of continued funding. To support this review and the management of a Center, STCs will be required to develop a set of management and performance indicators for submission annually to NSF via an NSF evaluation technical assistance contractor. These indicators are both quantitative and descriptive and may include, for example, the characteristics of center personnel and students; sources of financial support and in-kind support; expenditures by operational component; characteristics of industrial and/or other sector participation; research activities; education activities; knowledge transfer activities; patents, licenses; publications; degrees granted to students involved in Center activities; descriptions of significant advances and other outcomes of the STC effort. Part of this reporting will take the form of a database which will be owned by the institution and eventually made available to an evaluation contractor. This database will capture specific information to demonstrate progress towards achieving the goals of the program. Such reporting requirements will be included in the cooperative agreement which is binding between the academic institution and the NSF.

    Each Center's annual report will address the following categories of activities: (1) Research, (2) education, (3) knowledge transfer, (4) partnerships, (5) diversity, (6) management and (7) budget issues.

    For each of the categories the report will describe overall objectives for the year, problems the Center has encountered in making progress towards goals, anticipated problems in the following year, and specific outputs and outcomes.

    Use of the Information: NSF will use the information to continue funding of the Centers, and to evaluate the progress of the program.

    Estimate of Burden: 100 hours per center for 14 centers for a total of 1400 hours.

    Respondents: Non-profit institutions; federal government.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Report: One from each of the seventeen centers.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20431 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    National Science Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 28713, and 56 comments were received. NSF is forwarding the proposed renewal submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance simultaneously with the publication of this second notice. The full submission may be found at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to request renewed clearance of this collection. The primary purpose of this revision is to implement changes described in the Supplementary Information section of this notice. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for National Science Foundation, 725—17th Street NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send email to [email protected] Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, which is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year (including federal holidays).

    Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling 703-292-7556.

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Summary of Comments on the National Science Foundation Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide and NSF's Responses

    The draft NSF PAPPG was made available for review by the public on the NSF Web site at http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/. In response to the Federal Register notice published May 19, 2015, at 80 FR 28713, NSF received 56 comments from 12 different institutions/individuals; 33 comments were in response to the Grant Proposal Guide, and 23 were in response to the Award and Administration Guide. Following is the table showing the summaries of the comments received on the PAPPG sections, with NSF's response.

    No. Comment source Topic & PAPPG section Comment NSF Response 1 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Separate Sections for Intellectual Merit & Broader Impacts Chapter II.C.2d(i) and Exhibit II-1 Clarify the discrepancy between the wording of the requirements for the project description's contents (II.C.2d(i)), and the Proposal Preparation Checklist (Exhibit II-1). The policy section does not address having “Intellectual Merit” as a required separate section within the narrative. Whereas the Checklist says “Project Description contains, as a separate section within the narrative, sections labeled “Intellectual Merit” and “Broader Impacts.” The checklist has been corrected to clarify NSF requirements. 2 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Collaborators & Other Affiliations Chapter II.C.1e Remove ambiguity from Chapter II.C.1e. Collaborators & Other Affiliations Information (third bullet): “A list of all persons (including their organizational affiliations, if known), with whom the individual has had an association as thesis advisor, or with whom the individual has had an association within the last five years as a postgraduate-scholar sponsor.” [emphasis added]. Does the requirement, “within the last five years”, apply only to postdocs, or to both postdocs and graduate student advisees? The ambiguity could be avoided by separating the single item into two separate ones—one for former graduate students and one for postdocs. NSF has revised this language to address the concern identified. 3 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Miscellaneous Comment Increase the font size of NSF solicitations, preferably matching the NSF requirements for proposal documents. Currently, NSF solicitations are published in very small font that is difficult to read. A user can adjust these settings manually on their computer. As such it is not necessary for the Foundation to take further action. 4 CHORUS Public Access Plan Miscellaneous Comment In moving ahead, we urge NSF to continue to maintain and develop public-private partnerships. Such efforts will help the NSF contain costs, reduce the burden on researchers and their institutions, and ensure sustainable, broad public access to scholarly communication. NSF thanks you for your comment. 5 CHORUS Public Access Plan Miscellaneous Comment We are pleased to note that the Plan voices a strong commitment to ongoing consultation and collaboration with the diverse array of stakeholders in the scholarly communications community. That commitment has been evident in CHORUS' discussions with NSF over the past two years and we look forward to continuing to work with the NSF and other stakeholders to achieve our shared goal. NSF thanks you for your comment. 6 CHORUS Public Access Plan Miscellaneous Comment CHORUS is involved with a number of initiatives (the CrossRef-DataCite Pilot, SHARE, and the RDA-WDS Publishing Data Services Working Group, and potentially, the RMap Project, Dataverse, Figshare, and Dryad) to investigate tools and services that support researchers with their data management plans and help funding bodies with compliance tracking. We believe the need to develop and evolve data standards is critical. We therefore strongly encourage NSF to actively partner with some or all of these organizations, which are already overseeing the development of standards that deploy existing tools (e.g., DOIs, CrossRef's FundRef, and ORCID). NSF thanks you for your comment. 7 CHORUS Public Access Plan Miscellaneous Comment CHORUS is very interested in working with NSF and other funding agencies, publishers, data archive managers, and other stakeholders on developing mechanisms to connect articles and related datasets, for example, via developing publishers' systems to enable authors to submit their data to an appropriate archive and simultaneously link this to an article. NSF thanks you for your comment. 8 COGR Preliminary Proposals Chapter I.D.2 The PI then forwards the proposal to the appropriate office at his/her organization, and the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) signs and submits the preliminary proposal via use of NSF's electronic systems. The existing requirements do not limit personnel to that of only the AOR in providing proposal certifications. Given the volume of proposals reviewed, we request that the current language remain. NSF has always required certifications to be submitted by the AOR. As such, there is no change to this policy. 9 COGR Submission Instructions Chapter I.G.2 In submission of a proposal for funding by the AOR, the AOR is required to provide certain proposal certifications. This certification process will concur concurrently with the submission of the proposal. The revision of this section removes the ability to designate separate authorities to SRO's in FastLane for personnel other than the AOR to submit certain certifications. Additionally, it removes the current requirement to provide the required AOR certifications within five (5) working days following e-submission of the proposal. We request that the current language remain as is which allows more flexibility to meet required deadlines and reduces the burden of the AOR and the ability to make mistakes during peak deadline times. For consistency with government-wide requirements already established in Grants.gov, NSF is making a policy change to require certifications to be submitted at the time of proposal submission. This also is consistent with the policies established by the other 25 grant making agencies of the Federal government. 10 COGR Proposal Certifications Chapter II.C.1d The AOR must use the “Authorized Organizational Representative function” in FastLane to sign and submit the proposal, including the proposal certifications. It is the proposing organization's responsibility to assure that only properly authorized individuals sign in this capacity. We request that the current language remain which makes clear that SRO's can be authorized to electronically submit the proposal after review by the AOR. For consistency with government-wide requirements already established in Grants.gov, NSF is making a policy change to require certifications to be submitted at the time of proposal submission. This also is consistent with the policies established by the other 25 grant making agencies of the Federal government. 11 COGR Biographical Sketches Chapter II.C.2f(ii) A biographical sketch (limited to two pages) is required for each individual identified as senior personnel. “Other Personnel” biographical information can be uploaded along with the Biosketches for Senior Personnel in the Biosketches section of the proposal. It is not clear that whether biosketches for non-senior personnel should be uploaded with the biosketches of the PI or with other senior/key personnel? Do the instructions to upload or insert individual biosketches only apply to senior/key personnel? Language has been revised to clarify that biosketches for all personnel must be uploaded in a single file as an other supplementary document. 12 COGR Current and Pending Support Chapter II.C.2h . . . All project support from whatever source (e.g., Federal, State, local or foreign government agencies, public or private foundations, industrial or other commercial organization, or internal institutional resources) must be listed. The proposed project and all other projects or activities requiring a portion of time of the PI and other senior personnel must be included, even if they receive no salary support from the project(s). The total award amount for the entire award period covered (including indirect costs) must be shown as well as the number of person-months per year to be devoted to the project, regardless of source of support. While we recognize that current and pending support documentation has long been a requirement of NSF and other federal agencies, requiring this documentation at proposal submission adds additional administrative burden when the likelihood of being funded is unknown. We therefore ask that only those with favorable scientific review outcomes being considered for NSF funding be asked to submit current and pending support information. Providing this information post submission or at the time that the proposal has been selected for funding also means that the information will be more current, benefitting both NSF and the institution. In addition, we recommend that the request to have internal institutional resources identified, be limited to internal funds allocated toward specific projects. This will eliminate the unnecessary burden of reporting routine new faculty start-up packages that may include general equipment and space and/or voluntary time and effort dedicated toward another project or endeavor. We are further seeking confirmation that an institution can include zero (0) person months in appropriate situations who may commit to contribute to the scientific development or execution of the project, but are not committing any specific measurable effort to the project. Language incorporated. 13 COGR Dual Use Research of Concern Chapter II.D.14b Proposing organizations are responsible for identifying NSF-funded life sciences proposals that could potentially be considered dual use research of concern as defined in the US Government Policy for Institutional Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern. If the proposing organization identifies the proposal as dual use research of concern, the associated box must be checked on the Cover Sheet. (See also AAG Chapter VI.B.5 for additional information.) We are requesting clarity on the use of identifying NSF-funded life sciences that could “potentially” be considered dual use research of concern as described above vs the “identification” of DURC as implied by the second paragraph. We request that the DURC determination be consistent with the USG Policy that requires institutions to provide notification to the USG funding agency of any research that involves one or more of the 15 listed agents and one or more of the seven listed experimental effects as defined in Section 6.2 of the USG Policy within thirty (30) calendar days of the institutional review of the research for DURC potential. NSF has removed the DURC checkbox from the Cover Sheet. Certification language regarding DURC has been added to the listing of AOR certifications for compliance with government-wide requirements. 14 COGR Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern AAG, Chapter VI.B.5b . . . NSF awards are not expected to result in research that falls within the scope of this Policy. If, however, in conducting the activities supported under an award, the PI is concerned that any of the research results could potentially be considered Dual Use Research of Concern under this Policy, the PI or the grantee organization should promptly notify the cognizant NSF Program Officer. See comments to Chapter II. D.14(b) above. Language has been revised for compliance with government-wide requirements. 15 COGR Reporting Requirements AAG, Chapter II.D Our membership has noted the difference in reporting dates between programmatic reporting (90 days) and financial reporting (120) days. We appreciate the change NSF has made in the AAG to revise the financial reporting from 90 days to 120 days but further request your consideration to reflect the same dates for programmatic reporting. This would allow institutions to reconcile charges for publications of its subrecipients while giving more time to incorporate the programmatic results into the prime recipients final programmatic report. Language has been revised to change the due date of final reports and project outcomes reports to within 120 days following the end date the award. 16 COGR Public Access Plan AAG, Chapter VI.D.2 We appreciate the significant efforts the NSF has made with the release of its Public Access plan and its recognition that managing investigator research data that result from Federal investments is a major challenge. We are grateful that the NSF's plan will be carried out in an incremental fashion allowing all stakeholder groups to collaborate on this important initiative. While the challenges our members will face to monitor and manage various agency plans will be rough, we do appreciate NSF's continued willingness to engage stakeholder groups and coordinate with other Federal agencies to identify infrastructure capabilities, resolve outstanding and shared concerns, and develop best practices and standards. NSF thanks you for your comment. 17 Association of American Publishers/Division of Professional and Scholarly Publishing Public Access Plan (1) Maintain commitment to proceed carefully, incrementally, and in close consultation with stakeholders to avoid unintended consequences (2) Ensure flexible approach to managing unique discipline communities to sustain the quality, integrity, and availability of high-quality peer-reviewed articles reporting on scientific research (3) Expand on opportunities to minimize administrative and researcher burdens and costs by using flexible approaches and public-private partnerships (4) Keep flexible data requirements that recognize the unique research practices of different fields, and encourage collaborative private sector solutions that minimize costs and burdens (5) Ensure adequate resources are available to support allowable costs for access to publications and data (6) Continue clear communication and engagement with scholarly community. 1. NSF thanks you for your comment. 2. NSF thanks you for your comment. Comments have been requested on NSF's implementation of the Public Access requirement in the PAPPG, and not on the Plan itself. 3. NSF thanks you for your comment. Comments have been requested on NSF's implementation of the Public Access requirement in the PAPPG, and not on the Plan itself. 4. NSF thanks you for your comment. The NSF policy on data sharing and data management plans remains unchanged. 5. NSF thanks you for your comment. The NSF policy on data sharing and data management plans remains unchanged. 6. NSF thanks you for your comment. 18 University of Wisconsin Madison When to Submit Proposals and Format of the Proposal Chapter I.F and Chapter II.B We are thankful for the consistency in the use of the 5 PM submitter's local time deadline and proposal formatting requirements. Regardless of the solicitation or the directorate issuing the solicitation, institutions will know what to expect and manage proposals accordingly. Such consistency reduces administrative burden on institutions and investigators, and we are grateful for that. Thank you for your comment. No action required. 19 University of Wisconsin Madison Collaborators & Other Affiliations Chapter II.C.1e We welcome the separation of the information on collaborators and other affiliations. Doing so makes it easier to comply with the biosketch page limit. This also allows us to be more thorough with collaborator and other affiliation information, especially for those researchers who are very active collaborators. Thank you for your comment. No action required. 20 University of Wisconsin Madison Project Description Chapter II.C.2d(iii) That the Project Description must not contain URLs and must be self‐contained helps create a level playing field in that all proposers must adhere to the same page limits. We appreciate this clarification and emphasis. Thank you for your comment. No action required. 21 University of Wisconsin Madison Biographical Sketches Chapter II.C.2f(ii) When biosketches for non‐senior personnel will be included, should they be appended to the PI or another senior/key person's biosketch? Does the instruction to upload or insert individual biosketches only apply to senior/key personnel? Language has been revised to clarify that biosketches for all Other Personnel and Equipment Users must be uploaded in a single file as an other supplementary document. 22 University of Wisconsin Madison Current and Pending Support Chapter II.C.2h (1) The proposed requirement is that Current and Pending Support include project support from internal institutional resources. We are seeking more clarity regarding this proposed requirement. A variety of internal institutional resources may be available to support an investigator. Internal institutional resources may be awarded for a specific research project. In such cases, researchers have competed for resources to support a project with a specific scope of work. Internal institutional resources may also be used to support multiple projects. Resources may be made available in a variety of ways, for example, start‐up packages or fellowships that can be used to support a faculty member's research program as a whole. Such funding may be used at the discretion of the researchers—to purchase supplies or equipment, or to help pay for personnel. Another possible use of internal institutional resources would be to support faculty salaries in addition to or in lieu of using a grant to pay for a faculty member's time and effort on a project. Given the variety of ways in which internal institutional resources may be used, would NSF be able to specify what types of situations warrant inclusion on a current and pending support document? (2) We are seeking confirmation that a PI or other senior personnel can list zero person months on a project. This may be appropriate, depending on the source of funding and the purpose of the project, e.g., an equipment grant. That certain awards would not require effort is supported by OMB Memorandum 01‐06, which states that “some types of research programs, such as programs for equipment and instrumentation, doctoral dissertations, and student augmentation, do not require committed faculty effort, paid or unpaid by the Federal Government . . .” (3) In lieu of requesting that the Current and Pending support information be provided at the time of proposal, NSF may wish to consider asking for it to be submitted only if an award is being contemplated,