Federal Register Vol. 80, No.161,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 161 (August 20, 2015)

Page Range50543-50753
FR Document

80_FR_161
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 50715 - Application of Harris Aircraft Services, Inc. for Certificate AuthorityPDF
80 FR 50749 - Presidential Innovation Fellows ProgramPDF
80 FR 50663 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
80 FR 50708 - In the Matter of Internal Fixation Systems, Inc., File No. 500-1; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 50588 - Negotiated Rulemaking Committee; Public HearingsPDF
80 FR 50623 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 50607 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous FishPDF
80 FR 50649 - Gratuitous Services Agreement and Volunteer Release and Hold HarmlessPDF
80 FR 50644 - Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo TestPDF
80 FR 50709 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition ReceivedPDF
80 FR 50577 - Safety Zone; Whiskey Island Paddleboard Festival and Race; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OHPDF
80 FR 50575 - Special Local Regulations; Marine Events Held in the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 50576 - Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Automatic Identification System; Notice of Arrival Information CollectionPDF
80 FR 50662 - NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Heliophysics Subcommittee; MeetingPDF
80 FR 50576 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hutchinson River, Bronx, NYPDF
80 FR 50616 - Crooked River Valley Rehabilitation ProjectPDF
80 FR 50599 - Foreign-Trade Zone 122-Corpus Christi, TX; Authorization of Production Activity; M & G Resins, LLC (Polyethylene Terephthalate and Terephthalic Acid); Corpus Christi, TXPDF
80 FR 50598 - Notification of Proposed Production Activity, Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., Subzone 98A, (Passenger Motor Vehicles), Vance, AlabamaPDF
80 FR 50610 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 50632 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 50634 - Patient Safety Organizations: Voluntary Relinquishment From Schumacher Group Patient Safety Organization, Inc.PDF
80 FR 50634 - Patient Safety Organizations: Voluntary Relinquishment From Close Care Gap, PSOPDF
80 FR 50585 - Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; 2015 Recreational Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic HogfishPDF
80 FR 50626 - Gold Connect, LLC; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public CommentPDF
80 FR 50629 - Jhayrmaine Daniels, d/b/a California Skate-Line; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public CommentPDF
80 FR 50628 - Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public CommentPDF
80 FR 50625 - Inbox Group, LLC; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public CommentPDF
80 FR 50641 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Identifying Experts in Prevention Science Methods To Include on NIH Review Panels (OD)PDF
80 FR 50611 - Transfers of Administrative Jurisdiction, Camp Frank D. Merrill and Lake Lanier, GeorgiaPDF
80 FR 50650 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability ActPDF
80 FR 50669 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 50621 - 5440 Hydro, Inc; Notice of Availability of Environmental AssessmentPDF
80 FR 50621 - Alabama Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
80 FR 50620 - Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 50619 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 50622 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Lake Charles Liquefaction ProjectPDF
80 FR 50595 - Availability of a Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Biological Control of Emerald Ash BorerPDF
80 FR 50649 - Notice of Public Meeting, Albuquerque District Resource Advisory Council Meeting, New MexicoPDF
80 FR 50652 - Impregilo Healy Parsons Joint Venture; Grant of a Permanent VariancePDF
80 FR 50596 - Land Between The Lakes Advisory BoardPDF
80 FR 50712 - Hours of Service of Drivers: CRST Expedited Inc., Application for ExemptionPDF
80 FR 50711 - Hours of Service of Drivers; National Star Route Mail Contractors Association; Application for ExemptionPDF
80 FR 50717 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Notice 2006-47PDF
80 FR 50716 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
80 FR 50717 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form W-8CEPDF
80 FR 50640 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Comment Request; Interstate Shellfish Dealers CertificatePDF
80 FR 50636 - Lisa Marie Coroniti: Debarment OrderPDF
80 FR 50670 - Notice of Public Meeting of Presidio Institute Advisory CouncilPDF
80 FR 50710 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in CaliforniaPDF
80 FR 50709 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 50638 - Collecting On-Farm Antimicrobial Use and Resistance Data; Public Meeting; Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 50636 - Technical Document for Using the Inactive Ingredient Database; Establishment of a Public DocketPDF
80 FR 50587 - Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems; Reopening of Comment PeriodPDF
80 FR 50559 - Designating Additions to the Current List of Tropical Diseases in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic ActPDF
80 FR 50635 - Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Health Statistics (BSC, NCHS)PDF
80 FR 50642 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 50564 - Housing Choice Voucher Program: Streamlining the Portability ProcessPDF
80 FR 50681 - Archstone Alternative Solutions Fund and A.P. Management Company, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 50671 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding NASDAQ Last Sale PlusPDF
80 FR 50683 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Arca Options Fee SchedulePDF
80 FR 50707 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Modifying the NYSE Amex Options Fee SchedulePDF
80 FR 50685 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Customer Rebate ProgramPDF
80 FR 50678 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Nasdaq Rules 7014 and 7018PDF
80 FR 50689 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 11.6, Definitions; Rule 11.8, Order Types; Rule 11.9, Priority of Orders; Rule 11.10, Order Execution; and Rule 11.11, Routing to Away Trading CentersPDF
80 FR 50677 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Delay the Implementation Date of the Rule Change To Allow Market Orders To Sell in No-Bid Series To Be Entered Into the Electronic Order Book From a PAR WorkstationPDF
80 FR 50701 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Implementation of a Fee on Securities Lending and Repurchase Transactions With Respect to Shares of the CurrencyShares® Euro Trust and the CurrencyShares® Japanese Yen TrustPDF
80 FR 50635 - Pediatric Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 50639 - Bone, Reproductive, and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 50650 - Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 50558 - Revisions to Auxiliary Installations, Replacement Facilities, and Siting and Maintenance RegulationsPDF
80 FR 50597 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Automated Export System (AES) ProgramPDF
80 FR 50662 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Renew an Information CollectionPDF
80 FR 50669 - International Mail ContractPDF
80 FR 50589 - Periodic ReportingPDF
80 FR 50670 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
80 FR 50631 - Notice of Public Meeting for the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Federal Bureau of Investigation Central Records Complex in Winchester County, VirginiaPDF
80 FR 50663 - Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2PDF
80 FR 50714 - 30-day Notice and Request for Comments: Continuation of Six CollectionsPDF
80 FR 50590 - Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Alcoa BARTPDF
80 FR 50579 - Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Alcoa BARTPDF
80 FR 50642 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 50642 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 50642 - Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 50710 - Notice To Rescind Notice of Intent To Prepare Environmental Impact Statement, Interstate 64 Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Corridor, VirginiaPDF
80 FR 50596 - Boundary Description and Final Map for Grande Ronde Wild and Scenic River, Umatilla National Forest (OR and WA), Wallowa Whitman National Forest (WA) and Bureau of Land Management (WA).PDF
80 FR 50554 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter France) (Airbus Helicopters) HelicoptersPDF
80 FR 50550 - Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (Bell) HelicoptersPDF
80 FR 50615 - Extension of Public Comment Period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Joint Military TrainingPDF
80 FR 50599 - Marine Mammal Stock Assessment ReportsPDF
80 FR 50591 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida; Regional Haze Plan Amendment-Lakeland Electric C.D. McIntoshPDF
80 FR 50582 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 50616 - Notice for EV Everywhere Logo Design CompetitionPDF
80 FR 50593 - Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities; Service Criteria for Complementary Paratransit FaresPDF
80 FR 50622 - Notice of Commission Staff AttendancePDF
80 FR 50629 - SES Performance Review BoardPDF
80 FR 50543 - Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Revision of the Salable Quantity and Allotment Percentage for Class 3 (Native) Spearmint Oil for the 2014-2015 Marketing YearPDF
80 FR 50595 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 50618 - Appalachian Mountain Club; Notice of Availability of Environmental AssessmentPDF
80 FR 50551 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 50544 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 50556 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
80 FR 50719 - Amendments to the Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal BoardPDF

Issue

80 161 Thursday, August 20, 2015 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50632-50634 2015-20599 Patient Safety Organizations; Delistings: Close Care Gap, PSO, 50634-50635 2015-20597 Schumacher Group Patient Safety Organization, Inc., 50634 2015-20598 Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Market Promotion, Research and Information Orders: Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Revision of Salable Quantities and Allotment Percentages for the 2014-2015 Marketing Year, 50543-50544 2015-20442 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50595 2015-20432
Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Biological Control of Emerald Ash Borer, 50595-50596 2015-20573 Bonneville Bonneville Power Administration NOTICES Records of Decisions: Crooked River Valley Rehabilitation Project, 50616 2015-20603 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Automated Export System Program, 50597-50598 2015-20537 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings: Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Health Statistics, 50635 2015-20553 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Hutchinson River, Bronx, NY, 50576 2015-20604 Safety Zones: Whiskey Island Paddleboard Festival and Race; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH, 50577-50579 2015-20610 Special Local Regulations: Marine Events Held in the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone; Correction, 50575-50576 2015-20608 Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Automatic Identification System, 50576-50577 2015-20607 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50610 2015-20600 Defense Department Defense Department See

Engineers Corps

See

Navy Department

Education Department Education Department PROPOSED RULES Negotiated Rulemaking Committee; Public Hearings, 50588-50589 2015-20669 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Worker Adjustment Assistance Eligibility; Investigations, 50650-50652 2015-20539 Energy Department Energy Department See

Bonneville Power Administration

See

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office

See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES EV Everywhere Logo Design Competition, 50616-50618 2015-20475 Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Transfers of Administrative Jurisdiction: Camp Frank D. Merrill and Lake Lanier, GA, 50611-50615 2015-20590 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Indiana; Alcoa BART, 50579-50582 2015-20528 Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules; Correction, 50582-50585 2015-20496 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Florida; Regional Haze Plan Amendment -- Lakeland Electric C.D. McIntosh, 50591-50593 2015-20497 Indiana; Alcoa BART, 50590-50591 2015-20529 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 50544-50549, 50551-50553 2015-20382 2015-20383 Airbus Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter France) (Airbus Helicopters) Helicopters, 50554-50556 2015-20510 Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (Bell) Helicopters, 50550-50551 2015-20509 Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 50556-50558 2015-20366 PROPOSED RULES Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems and Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems: Reopening of Comment Period, 50587-50588 2015-20555 NOTICES Petitions for Exemption; Summaries, 50709-50710 2015-20612 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES Revisions to Auxiliary Installations, Replacement Facilities, and Siting and Maintenance Regulations, 50558-50559 2015-20538 NOTICES Applications: Alabama Power Co., 50621-50622 2015-20577 Combined Filings, 50619-50620 2015-20575 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: 5440 Hydro, Inc., 50621 2015-20578 Appalachian Mountain Club, 50618-50619 2015-20428 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Trunkline Gas Co., LLC; Lake Charles LNG Co., LLC; Lake Charles LNG Export Co., LLC; Lake Charles Liquefaction Project, 50622-50623 2015-20574 Requests under Blanket Authorization: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., LLC, 50620-50621 2015-20576 Staff Attendances, 50622 2015-20463 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Interstate 64 Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Corridor, Virginia, 50710-50711 2015-20515 Federal Agency Actions: California; Proposed Highway, 50710 2015-20559 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Hours of Service of Drivers; Exemption Applications: CRST Expedited Inc., 50712-50713 2015-20569 National Star Route Mail Contractors Association, 50711-50712 2015-20568 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50623-50625 2015-20632 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Proposed Consent Orders: Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure, Inc., 50628-50629 2015-20593 Gold Connect, LLC, 50626-50628 2015-20595 Inbox Group, LLC, 50625-50626 2015-20592 Jhayrmaine Daniels, d/b/a California Skate-Line, 50629-50631 2015-20594 SES Performance Review Board, 50629 2015-20459 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Designating Additions to the Current List of Tropical Diseases in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 50559-50564 2015-20554 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Interstate Shellfish Dealers Certificate, 50640-50641 2015-20562 Debarment Orders: Lisa Marie Coroniti, 50636-50637 2015-20561 Guidance: Technical Document for Using the Inactive Ingredient Database, 50636 2015-20556 Meetings: Bone, Reproductive, and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee, 50639-50640 2015-20540 Collecting On-Farm Antimicrobial Use and Resistance Data, 50638-50639 2015-20557 Pediatric Advisory Committee; Correction, 50635-50636 2015-20541 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Activities: Foreign-Trade Zone 122, M and G Resins, LLC, Corpus Christi, TX, 50599 2015-20602 Subzone 98A, Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., Vance, AL, 50598-50599 2015-20601 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Boundary Descriptions and Maps: Grande Ronde Wild and Scenic River, Umatilla National Forest, OR and WA, Wallowa Whitman National Forest and Bureau of Land Management, WA, 50596-50597 2015-20513 Meetings: Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board, 50596 2015-20570 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Federal Bureau of Investigation Central Records Complex in Winchester County, VA, 50631-50632 2015-20532 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Gratuitous Services Agreement and Volunteer Release and Hold Harmless, 50649 2015-20615
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department RULES Housing Choice Voucher Program: Streamlining the Portability Process, 50564-50575 2015-20551 Interior Interior Department See

Land Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50716-50718 2015-20564 2015-20565 2015-20566 2015-20567 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees under CERCLA, 50650 2015-20580 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Albuquerque District Resource Advisory Council Meeting, New Mexico, 50649-50650 2015-20572 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Meetings: Heliophysics Subcommittee, 50662 2015-20606 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Identifying Experts in Prevention Science Methods to Include on Review Panels, 50641-50642 2015-20591 Meetings: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2015-20517 50642 2015-20518 Office of the Director, 50642 2015-20516 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic: 2015 Recreational Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Hogfish, 50585-50586 2015-20596 NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Take of Anadromous Fish, 50607-50610 2015-20616 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, 50599-50607 2015-20502 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50662-50663 2015-20536 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Joint Military Training, 50615-50616 2015-20507 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations; Correction, 50663 2015-20701 Facility Operating Licenses: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 50663-50669 2015-20531 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Permanent Variance Approvals: Impregilo Healy Parsons Joint Venture, 50652-50662 2015-20571 Patent Patent and Trademark Office PROPOSED RULES Rules of Practice for Trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; Amendments, 50720-50747 2015-20227 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Periodic Reporting, 50589-50590 2015-20534 NOTICES International Mail Contract, 50669-50670 2015-20535 New Postal Products, 50669 2015-20579 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 50670 2015-20533 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Government Agencies and Employees: Presidential Innovation Fellows Program; Establishment (EO 13704), 50749-50753 2015-20801 Presidio Presidio Trust NOTICES Meetings: Presidio Institute Advisory Council, 50670-50671 2015-20560 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Archstone Alternative Solutions Fund and A.P. Management Company, LLC, 50681-50683 2015-20550 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 50677-50678 2015-20543 EDGA Exchange, Inc., 50689-50701 2015-20544 NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., 50671-50677 2015-20549 NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, 50685-50689 2015-20546 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 50678-50681 2015-20545 NYSE Arca, Inc., 2015-20542 50683-50685, 50701-50707 2015-20548 NYSE MKT LLC, 50707-50708 2015-20547 Trading Suspension Orders: Internal Fixation Systems, Inc., 50708-50709 2015-20684 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50642-50644 2015-20552 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50714-50715 2015-20530 Tennessee Tennessee Valley Authority NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 50709 2015-20558 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

PROPOSED RULES Petitions for Rulemaking: Transportation for Individuals with Disabilities; Service Criteria for Complementary Paratransit Fares, 50593-50594 2015-20467 NOTICES Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity: Harris Aircraft Services, Inc., 50715 C1--2015--19910
Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Automated Commercial Environment Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test, 50644-50649 2015-20614 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Commerce Department, Patent and Trademark Office, 50720-50747 2015-20227 Part III Presidential Documents, 50749-50753 2015-20801 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.

80 161 Thursday, August 20, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 985 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-13-0087; FV14-985-1C FIR] Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Revision of the Salable Quantity and Allotment Percentage for Class 3 (Native) Spearmint Oil for the 2014-2015 Marketing Year 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 recommended by the Spearmint Oil Administrative Committee (Committee) that further revised the quantity of Class 3 (Native) spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle on behalf of, producers during the 2014-2015 marketing year under the Far West spearmint oil marketing order. The salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint oil was initially established at 1,090,821 pounds and 46 percent, respectively, and was subsequently increased to 1,280,561 pounds and 54 percent in a separate rulemaking action. This action further increases the Native spearmint oil salable quantity to 1,351,704 pounds and the allotment percentage to 57 percent for the 2014-2015 marketing year. This change is expected to help maintain orderly marketing conditions in the Far West spearmint oil market.

DATES:

Effective August 21, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barry Broadbent, Senior 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 obtain information on complying with this and other marketing order 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 Order No. 985 (7 CFR part 985), as amended, regulating the handling of spearmint oil produced in the Far West (Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and designated parts of Nevada and Utah), 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.

The handling of spearmint oil produced in the Far West is regulated by the order and is administered locally by the Committee. Under the authority of the order, salable quantities and allotment percentages were established for both Scotch and Native spearmint oil for the 2014-2015 marketing year. However, during the course of the 2014-2015 marketing year, it became evident to the Committee and the industry that demand for Native spearmint oil was greater than previously projected and an intra-seasonal increase in the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint oil was necessary to adequately supply the increased demand. The salable quantity and allotment percentage was subsequently increased from 1,090,821 pounds and 46 percent to 1,280,561 and 54 percent in a separate rulemaking action. The increased salable quantity and allotment percentage proved insufficient to fully supply demand and were further increased in the interim rule to 1,351,704 pounds and 57 percent. Therefore, this rule continues in effect the interim rule that increased the Native spearmint oil salable quantity from 1,280,561 pounds to 1,351,704 pounds and the allotment percentage from 54 percent to 57 percent.

In an interim rule published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2015, effective on March 30, 2015, and applicable to the 2014-2015 marketing year (80 FR 16547, Doc. No. AMS-FV-13-0087, FV14-985-1C IR), § 985.233 was amended to reflect the aforementioned increase in the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint oil for the 2014-2015 marketing year.

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 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 8 spearmint oil handlers subject to regulation under the order, and approximately 39 producers of Scotch spearmint oil and approximately 91 producers of Native spearmint oil in the regulated production 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 having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

Based on the SBA's definition of small entities, the Committee estimates that only two of the eight handlers regulated by the order could be considered small entities. Most of the handlers are large corporations involved in the international trading of essential oils and the products of essential oils. In addition, the Committee estimates that 22 of the 39 Scotch spearmint oil producers and 29 of the 91 Native spearmint oil producers could be classified as small entities under the SBA definition. Thus, the majority of handlers and producers of Far West spearmint oil may not be classified as small entities.

The use of volume control regulation allows the spearmint oil industry to fully supply spearmint oil markets while avoiding the negative consequences of over-supplying these markets. Without volume control regulation, the supply and price of spearmint oil would likely fluctuate widely. Periods of oversupply could result in low producer prices and a large volume of oil stored and carried over to future crop years. Periods of undersupply could lead to excessive price spikes and could drive end users to source their flavoring needs from other markets, potentially causing long-term economic damage to the domestic spearmint oil industry. The order's volume control provisions have been successfully implemented in the domestic spearmint oil industry since 1980 and provide benefits for producers, handlers, manufacturers, and consumers.

This rule increases the quantity of Native spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from or handle on behalf of producers during the 2014-2015 marketing year, which ended on May 31, 2015. The 2014-2015 Native spearmint oil salable quantity was initially established at 1,090,821 pounds and the allotment percentage initially set at 46 percent. In a separate rulemaking action, the salable quantity was increased to 1,280,561 pounds and the allotment percentage was increased 54 percent. This rule continues in effect the action that further increased the 2014-2015 Native spearmint oil salable quantity to 1,351,704 and the allotment percentage to 57 percent.

The Committee reached its decision to recommend a further increase in the salable quantity and allotment after consideration of all available information. With the increase, the Committee believes that the industry will be able to satisfactorily meet the current market demand for this class of spearmint oil. This rule amends the salable quantity and allotment percentage previously established for Native spearmint oil in § 985.233. Authority for this action is provided in §§ 985.50, 985.51, and 985.52 of the order.

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 Crop Marketing Orders. 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 spearmint oil 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 Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the spearmint oil industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the February 18, 2015, meeting was a public meeting and all 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 May 29, 2015. One comment was received. The comment was non-substantive in nature and did not address the merits of the rule. Accordingly, no changes were made to the rule. For the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule.

To view the interim rule, go to: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=AMS-FV-13-0087-0006.

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 16547, March, 2015) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 985

Marketing agreements, Oils and fats, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Spearmint oil.

Accordingly, the interim rule that amended 7 CFR part 985 and that was published at 80 FR 16547 on March 30, 2015, is adopted as a final rule, without change.

Dated: August 13, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-20442 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0282; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-168-AD; Amendment 39-18242; AD 2015-17-09] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-18-02 for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model C4-605R variant F airplanes (collectively called A300-600 series airplanes). AD 98-18-02 required inspections to detect cracks in the center spar sealing angles adjacent to the pylon rear attachment and in the adjacent butt strap and skin panel, and correction of discrepancies. This new AD continues to require inspections for cracks. This new AD also requires a modification by cold expansion of the center spar sealing angles, replacement of both sealing angles and cold expansion of the attachment holes if necessary, and post-repair repetitive inspections and corrective actions if necessary. This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the vertical web of the center spar sealing angles of the wing, and subsequent analyses that showed that the inspection threshold and interval specified in AD 98-18-02 must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks on the sealing angles of the center spar, adjacent to rib 8. We are issuing this AD to prevent crack formation in the sealing angles, which could rupture the sealing angle and lead to subsequent crack formation in the bottom skin of the wing, and result in reduced structural integrity of the center spar section of the wing.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective September 24, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0282; or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS—EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0282.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2006-07-07, Amendment 39-14534 (71 FR 16206, March 31, 2006; corrected April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20530)). AD 2006-07-07 applied to certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model C4-605R variant F airplanes (collectively called A300-600 series airplanes). The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2014 (79 FR 26651). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracking in the vertical web of the center spar sealing angles of the wing, and subsequent analyses that showed that the inspection threshold and interval must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks. The NPRM proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2006-07-07: Modification of bolt holes in the vertical flange of the center spar sealing angles, and applicable related investigative and corrective actions. The NPRM also proposed to require inspections for cracks, a modification by cold expansion of the center spar sealing angles, replacement of both sealing angles and cold expansion of the attachment holes if necessary, and post-repair repetitive inspections and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent crack formation in the sealing angles, which could rupture the sealing angle and lead to subsequent crack formation in the bottom skin of the wing, and result in reduced structural integrity of the center spar section of the wing.

Although we proposed to supersede AD 2006-07-07, Amendment 39-14534 (71 FR 16206, March 31, 2006; corrected April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20530)), this AD instead supersedes AD 98-18-02, Amendment 39-10718 (63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998). AD 98-18-02 required inspections using an earlier revision of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, which is the appropriate source of service information for doing the inspections required by this AD. This change to the proposed actions is explained in the “Request to Supersede a Different AD” paragraph in the preamble of this final rule.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2012-0194, dated September 25, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model C4-605R variant F airplanes (collectively called A300-600 series airplanes). The MCAI states:

Fatigue testing applied to a test airframe confirmed the initiation of cracks on the sealing angles of the centre spar, adjacent to rib 8, which could lead to the rupture of the sealing angles and the subsequent crack initiation in the bottom skin of the wing.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.

To address this unsafe condition, DGAC [French Civil Aviation Authority] France issued * * * [an earlier AD][which corresponds to FAA AD 98-18-02, Amendment 39-10718, (63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998)] to require inspection of centre spar sealing angles adjacent to pylon rear attachment fittings of Left Hand (LH) and Right Hand (RH) wings.

Early cracks reported on an in-service aeroplane prompted Airbus to conduct additional investigations. Based on the results, DGAC France issued * * * [an AD that superseded the earlier DGAC AD], to require modification of the affected aeroplanes as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A300-57-6033 (Airbus Mod 8609), as well as post-modification repetitive inspections. [DGAC France AD 2003-290(B)R1 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2006-24364-0008) revised the DGAC AD that required modification and post-modification repetitive inspections.]

Since DGAC France AD 2003-290(B)R1 was issued [which corresponds to FAA AD 2006-07-07, Amendment 39-14534 (71 FR 16206, March 31, 2006; corrected April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20530))], a fleet survey and updated Fatigue and Damage Tolerance analyses have been performed in order to substantiate the second A300-600 Extended Service Goal (ESG2) exercise. The results of these analyses have shown that the inspection threshold and interval must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks on the sealing angles of the centre spar, adjacent to rib 8.

For the reasons described above, this new [EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC France AD 2003-290(B)R1, which is superseded, and requires the accomplishment instructions at the new thresholds and intervals given by Revision 07 of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A300-57-6027.

The required actions also include repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of the center spar sealing angles adjacent to the pylon rear attachment fitting for cracks, modifying the airplane by cold expansion of the center spar sealing angles outboard of rib 8 if necessary, replacing both of the forward and aft sealing angles with new sealing angles and cold expanding the attachment holes if necessary, and doing post-repair repetitive inspections and corrective actions if necessary. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0282-0002.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Supersede a Different AD

UPS requested that AD 98-18-02, Amendment 39-10718 (63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998), be superseded and AD 2006-07-07, Amendment 39-14534 (71 FR 16206, March 31, 2006; corrected April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20530)), remain a stand-alone AD to address potential conflicts with the inspection interval differences. UPS stated that AD 98-18-02 refers to Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 2, dated September 13, 1994, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing inspections required by AD 98-18-02.

UPS also stated that the NPRM (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) refers to Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing inspections specified in the NPRM. UPS stated there is a conflict in the inspection intervals between Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 2, dated September 13, 1994; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011. UPS also noted that AD 2006-07-07, Amendment 39-14534 (71 FR 16206, March 31, 2006; corrected April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20530)), requires a one-time modification in accordance with different service information (Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6033, Revision 01, dated December 18, 2003) and therefore that AD could be a stand-alone AD.

We agree with the commenter's request and rationale. We have revised this AD to supersede AD 98-18-02, Amendment 39-10718 (63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998), and require inspections using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011. This AD does not retain the inspections specified in Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 2, dated September 13, 1994, and required by AD 98-18-02. In addition, AD 2006-07-07, Amendment 39-14534 (71 FR 16206, March 31, 2006; corrected April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20530)), is not superseded by this AD. Therefore, we have removed paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) from this AD and redesignated the subsequent paragraphs.

We have also revised the “prompted by” sentence in the SUMMARY section of this final rule and paragraph (e) of this AD to specify the AD “was prompted by reports of cracking in the vertical web of the center spar sealing angles of the wing, and subsequent analyses that showed that the inspection threshold and interval specified in AD 98-18-02, Amendment 39-10718 (63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998), must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks on the sealing angles of the center spar, adjacent to rib 8.”

Request To Revise Compliance Times

UPS requested that we revise the compliance times in the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) to reflect specific times regardless of the aircraft utilization rate. UPS stated that a comment response in AD 98-18-02, Amendment 39-10718 (63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998), noted that the FAA did not concur with the “average flight time” (“AFT”) compliance time methodology as it may not address the unsafe condition in a timely manner. UPS stated that paragraphs (i) and (j) of the proposed AD specify that the compliance time is at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, which establishes the initial and repetitive inspection compliance times based on AFT methodology. UPS requested changing the compliance times in paragraphs (i) and (j) of the proposed AD to reflect specific values regardless of the aircraft utilization rate to provide consistency in the compliance times for the actions required by paragraph (i) of the proposed AD.

We disagree with the commenter's request to revise the compliance times in this AD. At the time the FAA issued AD 98-18-02, Amendment 39-10718 (63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998), the required actions in Airbus Industrie Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 2, dated September 13, 1994, contained inspection thresholds and intervals based on airplane flight cycles, and provided instructions for adjusting the flight cycle threshold and interval using each individual airplane's AFT utilization. The FAA did not agree with the AFT method because it could result in a different inspection threshold and interval for each individual airplane, and the FAA did not agree with adjusting a flight cycle based threshold and interval using the average flight time utilization without also having a related flight hour based threshold and interval. In Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, the inspection thresholds and intervals are now based on the accumulation of both flight cycles and flight hours, and are listed in tables appropriately grouping airplanes with AFT utilization above 1.5 hours, and airplanes with AFT utilization at or below 1.5 hours. The changes made in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, have addressed the FAA's original concerns with the AFT method. Therefore, the current AFT method is acceptable for this AD.

We acknowledge that a fixed compliance time for a fleet could be easier for operators to schedule and record compliance. Therefore, under the provisions of paragraph (m)(1) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) if a proposal is submitted that is supported by technical data that includes fatigue and damage tolerance analysis. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Combine Paragraphs (i) Through (m) of the Proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014)

UPS requested that we combine paragraphs (i) through (m) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) because the complexity of the paragraphs could easily result in incorrect interpretation of the proposed requirements and be counterproductive to the intent of the rule. The commenter stated that the requirements are distributed over five separate paragraphs. The commenter recommended that the requirements be revised by first requiring operators to identify whether Repair Drawing R57140588 or R57150404 or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6033 was done and then by specifying the corresponding actions and compliance times for the affected airplanes.

We acknowledge the requirements are complex. However, we disagree with the request to combine paragraphs (g) through (k) of this AD (which were designated as paragraphs (i) through (m) in the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014)). As stated previously, we are superseding AD 98-18-02, Amendment 39-10718 (63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998), to prevent any incorrect interpretation of the inspection compliance times. This AD corresponds to EASA AD 2012-0194, dated September 25, 2012, and both ADs refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, for compliance times, which specifies the affected airplanes and corresponding compliance times. Paragraph (k) of this AD also specifies exceptions to Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, in order to clarify certain actions and compliance times. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Revise Compliance Time Header

UPS requested that the header for paragraph (j) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) be revised from “Initial Compliance Times” to “Inspection Compliance Times.” (Paragraph (j) of the proposed AD is redesignated as paragraph (h) of this AD.) UPS stated that “Initial Compliance Times” implies that requirements for subsequent or repetitive actions will be defined elsewhere in the final rule.

We agree to revise the header for paragraph (h) of this AD; however we do not agree to use the terminology specified by the commenter. The requirements for subsequent and repetitive actions are, in fact, identified elsewhere in the final rule. The repetitive intervals for the inspections are specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, which was designated as paragraph (i) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014). Paragraph (g) of this AD contains a sentence that specifies, “Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed . . . .” For clarity, we have revised the header for paragraph (h) of this AD to specify “Initial Compliance Times for the Actions Required by Paragraph (g) of this AD.”

In addition, we have clarified the corrective action statement in paragraph (i) of this AD by also referring to paragraph (g) of this AD, which contains the repetitive interval for the inspections specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

Request To Remove Requirement To Refer to This AD in Repair Approvals

UPS requested that we remove the sentence “For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD” from paragraph (m)(1) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014), which is designated as paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. UPS stated that the FAA included this sentence in the NPRM because there is a “potential” for operators to do repairs that do not adequately address the unsafe condition. UPS commented that adding a reference to the applicable AD on repair documentation does not address the root cause of repair documentation availability. UPS stated that previously approved repairs for an AD should have been vetted as part of the corrective action and AD development process. However, if a repair is not identified during that process, the operator is still responsible for adhering to the Airworthy Product provision in an AD. UPS added that the Airworthy Product provision, in conjunction with FAA Advisory Circular 120-77, “Maintenance and Alteration Data,” dated October 7, 2002 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/199e798c7ee4347786256c4d004ae5dc/$FILE/AC%20120-77.pdf), provides sufficient guidance and clarification for repairs accomplished during compliance with the requirements of an AD.

We concur with the commenter's request to remove from this AD the requirement that repair approvals specifically refer to this AD. We have revised paragraph (k)(1) of this AD accordingly (designated as paragraph (m)(1) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014)).

In addition, to address misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are EASA approved, which is also FAA approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information. This clarification does not remove flexibility afforded previously by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. Once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.

Request To Clarify Actions in Paragraphs (k) and (l) of the Proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014)

UPS requested that we clarify paragraphs (k) and (l) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014). UPS stated that paragraph (l) of the proposed AD specifies “post-modification” actions, but paragraph (k) refers to accomplishing a “repair” using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011. UPS noted that Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, includes subsequent inspection requirements for airplanes on which the actions specified in repair drawing R57140588 or R57150404 or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6033 were done. UPS concluded that the intent of paragraph (l) of the proposed AD was for repairs outside of Repair Drawing R57140588 or R57150404 or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6033.

We agree that clarification is necessary regarding which action is the “modification” specified in paragraph (j) in this AD, which was designated as paragraph (l) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014). We have replaced the text “After modification of the airplane, as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011,” with the following text: “For airplanes on which the modification specified in Airbus Repair Drawing R571504040 has been done.”

Request To Clarify Applicability

UPS requested that we revise paragraph (c) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) to clarify that airplanes are excluded from the applicability if Airbus Modification 8608 is incorporated “in production.”

We agree with the commenter. Airbus Modification 8608 is a production modification. We have revised paragraph (c) of this AD accordingly by adding “in production” to the text.

Request To Fix Typographical Error

UPS requested that the paragraph designation for paragraph (o)(3) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) be revised because there are only two sub-paragraphs in paragraph (o) of the proposed AD.

We agree. Paragraph (o) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) has been redesignated as paragraph (m) of this AD. Therefore, we have redesignated paragraph (o)(3) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) as paragraph (m)(2) of this AD.

Clarification of Compliance Times and Actions

We have revised the compliance time exception in paragraph (k)(4) of this AD, designated as paragraph (m)(4) of the proposed AD (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014), to clarify the specified compliance times are since first flight of the airplane.

We have also revised the reference to “paragraph (k)(3) of this AD” within paragraph (g) of this AD to specify “paragraph (k) of this AD” for the compliance time exception.

We have also replaced the word “repairing” with the word “inspecting” in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD because that paragraph specifies compliance times for inspection requirements.

Conclusion

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 26651, May 9, 2014).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Airbus has issued the following service information:

• Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, describes procedures for repetitive high frequency eddy current inspections for cracking of the center spar sealing angles adjacent to the pylon rear attachment fitting, and repair.

• Service Bulletin A300-57-6033, Revision 02, dated September 19, 2011, describes procedures for modifying the airplane by cold expansion of the center spar sealing angles outboard of rib 8, including doing the eddy current inspections for cracks of the bolt holes.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 21 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate that it takes 8 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $14,280, or $680 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 42 work-hours and require parts costing $10,000, for a cost of $13,570 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0282; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-18-02, Amendment 39-10718 (63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998), and adding the following new AD: 2015-17-09 Airbus: Amendment 39-18242. Docket No. FAA-2014-0282; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-168-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective September 24, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD replaces AD 98-18-02, Amendment 39-10718 (63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, and B4-622R airplanes, Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes, certificated in any category, except those on which Airbus Modification 8608 is incorporated in production.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the vertical web of the center spar sealing angles of the wing, and subsequent analyses that showed that the inspection threshold and interval specified in AD 98-18-02, Amendment 39-10718 (63 FR 45689, August 27, 1998), must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks on the sealing angles of the center spar, adjacent to rib 8. We are issuing this AD to prevent crack formation in the sealing angles; such cracks could rupture the sealing angle and lead to subsequent crack formation in the bottom skin of the wing, and resultant reduced structural integrity of the center spar section of the wing.

(f) Compliance

You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.

(g) Inspection and Modification

For all airplanes, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, accomplish the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD concurrently. Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed the values as specified in the “Repeat Interval” column in Table 1 or Table 2 of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, as applicable to the airplane configuration and utilization; except as required by paragraph (k) of this AD.

(1) Do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection of the center spar sealing angles adjacent to the pylon rear attachment fitting for cracks, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011.

(2) Unless already done: Modify the airplane by cold expansion of the center spar sealing angles outboard of rib 8, adjacent to the pylon rear attachment fitting, including doing the eddy current inspections for cracks of the bolt holes, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6033, Revision 02, dated September 19, 2011.

(h) Initial Compliance Times for the Actions Required by Paragraph (g) of This AD

At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (k) of this AD, do the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(1) At the applicable compliance time specified in Table 1 and Table 2 in the “Threshold Inspection,” column in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011.

(2) At the applicable compliance time specified in Table 1 and Table 2 in the “Grace Period,” column in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011.

(i) Corrective Actions

If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g), (g)(1), or (g)(2) of this AD, any crack is found: Before further flight, repair the crack by replacing both of the forward and aft sealing angles with new sealing angles and cold expansion of the attachment holes, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011. The corrective actions, as required by this paragraph, do not constitute as a terminating action for the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

(j) Post-Modification Actions

For airplanes on which the modification specified in Airbus Repair Drawing R571504040 has been done: Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, or before further flight after doing the modification, whichever occurs later, contact the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA) for repetitive post-repair inspections and corrective actions, and do those actions.

(k) Exceptions to the Service Information

(1) Where Note 01 and Note 02 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, specify to contact Airbus for inspection requirements, this AD requires, at the applicable compliance time specified in Table 1 and Table 2 in the “Grace Period,” column in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, inspecting using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

(2) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, specifies a compliance time in Table 1 and Table 2 in the “Grace Period,” column in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

(3) Where Table 1 and Table 2 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, specify a choice between flight cycles or flight hours, this AD requires a compliance time within the specified flight cycles or flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(4) Where Table 1 and Table 2 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, specify compliance times in the “Threshold Inspection” column for pre-modification 8609, those compliance times are flight cycles or flight hours since first flight of the airplane.

(5) Where Table 1 and Table 2 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, specify compliance times in the “Threshold Inspection” column for any post modification or repair, this AD requires compliance within the applicable compliance time specified in the “Threshold Inspection” column of Table 1 and Table 2 in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011. Those compliance times are flight cycles or flight hours since accomplishing the modification or repair.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraphs (l)(1) through (l)(3) of this AD, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 04, dated August 4, 1999.

(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 05, dated November 21, 2002.

(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 06, dated March 2, 2005.

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(n) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2012-0194, dated September 25, 2012, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0282.

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

(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6027, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011.

(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6033, Revision 02, dated September 19, 2011.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS—EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 10, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-20382 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0643; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-059-AD; Amendment 39-18235; AD 2015-17-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (Bell) Helicopters AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2001-13-51 for Bell Model 206L-4, 407, and 427 helicopters. AD 2001-13-51 required inspecting certain driveshafts for a crack, a loose bolt or nut, or red powder residue and replacing a driveshaft if there is a crack, a loose bolt or nut, or red powder residue. AD 2001-13-51 also required notifying the FAA within 10 days if a crack is found in the driveshaft. This new AD retains the inspection requirement of AD 2001-13-51, expands the applicability to include the Model 429 helicopter, and removes the reporting requirement. This AD is intended to prevent failure of a driveshaft, loss of drive to the main rotor system, and a subsequent emergency landing.

DATES:

This AD is effective September 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, Texas 76177.

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-2014-0643, or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew Fuller, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, Texas 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

On August 22, 2014, we issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (79 FR 54922, September 15, 2014) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2001-13-51, Amendment 39-12443 (66 FR 48535, September 21, 2001). AD 2001-13-51 applied to Bell Model 206L-4, 407 and 427 helicopters. AD 2001-13-51 required visually inspecting driveshaft, part number (P/N) 206-340-300-105, for a crack, a loose bolt or nut, or red powder residue and replacing a driveshaft if there is a crack, a loose bolt or nut, or red powder residue. AD 2001-13-51 also required notifying the FAA within 10 days if a crack is found in the driveshaft and prohibited interchanging a driveshaft between different models if the driveshaft has ever been installed on a Bell Model 407 helicopter.

After we issued AD 2001-13-51, the Model 429 helicopter was certificated. TCCA, which is the aviation authority for Canada, issued Canadian AD CF-2002-03R3, Revision 3, dated September 26, 2013, to add Model 429 helicopters to the applicability and to require removing any driveshaft, part number (P/N) 206-340-300-105, if it has ever been installed on a Bell Model 407 helicopter.

The NPRM proposed to retain the inspection requirements of AD 2001-13-51, expand the applicability to include the Model 429 helicopters, and remove the reporting requirement.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (79 FR 54922, September 15, 2014).

FAA's Determination

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, TCAA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the Canadian AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by TCAA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the TCCA AD

The TCCA AD requires following the compliance time specified in the Bell ASBs, which allows more time, based on the hours TIS, for removing the driveshaft. This AD requires replacing the driveshaft before accumulating 1,250 hours TIS.

Related Service Information

We reviewed Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 206L-01-123, Revision A, dated February 22, 2006, for Bell Model 206L-4 helicopters and ASB No. 427-01-04, Revision A, dated March 31, 2006, for Bell Model 427 helicopters. Both ASBs describe inspecting the Historical Service Record of the engine-to-transmission driveshaft, P/N 206-340-300-105, to determine whether the driveshaft has ever been installed on a Bell Model 407 helicopter and removing the driveshaft if it has ever been installed on a Model 407 helicopter. We also reviewed Bell ASB No. 407-01-45, Revision B, dated April 23, 2013, for Bell Model 407 helicopters, which describes an engine-to-transmission driveshaft 1,250-Hour overhaul. TCCA classified these ASBs as mandatory and issued AD No. CF-2002-03R3, Revision 3, dated September 26, 2013, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 970 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. We estimate 0.25 work-hour to determine whether the driveshaft has ever been installed on a Bell Model 407 helicopter for a total cost of $22 per helicopter or $21,340 for the fleet. If a driveshaft has been installed on a Model 407 helicopter, we estimate 1 work hour to inspect the driveshaft for a cost of $85 per helicopter, and 2 work hours and $39,724 for required parts to replace a driveshaft for a cost of $39,894 per helicopter.

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2001-13-51, Amendment 39-12443 (66 FR 48535, September 21, 2001), and adding the following new AD: 2015-17-02 Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (Bell): Amendment 39-18235; Docket No. FAA-2014-0643; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-059-AD. (a) Applicability

This AD applies to Model 206L-4, 407, 427, and 429 helicopters with an engine-to-transmission driveshaft assembly (driveshaft), part number (P/N) 206-340-300-105, installed, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a driveshaft due to cracking of the flex frame on the forward end of the driveshaft. This condition could result in loss of drive to the main rotor system and a subsequent emergency forced landing.

(c) Affected ADs

This AD supersedes AD 2001-13-51, Amendment 39-12443, Docket No. 2001-SW-29-AD (66 FR 48535, September 21, 2001).

(d) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective September 24, 2015.

(e) Compliance

You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

(f) Required Actions

(1) Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS), determine whether driveshaft, P/N 206-340-300-105, has ever been installed on a Bell Model 407 helicopter, and record this on the component history card or equivalent record. If driveshaft, P/N 206-340-300-105, has ever been installed on a Bell Model 407 helicopter:

(i) For Bell Model 206L-4, 407, and 427 helicopters, within 25 hours TIS, inspect each driveshaft for a crack, a loose bolt or nut, and red powder residue. If there is a crack, a loose bolt or nut, or red powder residue, replace the driveshaft with an airworthy driveshaft before further flight.

(ii) For all affected Bell model helicopters, on or before accumulating 1,250 hours TIS, replace each driveshaft with an airworthy driveshaft.

(2) Do not install driveshaft, P/N 206-340-300-105, on any helicopter if it has ever been installed on a Bell Model 407 helicopter.

(g) Special Flight Permit

Special flight permits are prohibited.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matthew Fuller, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, Texas 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(i) Additional Information

(1) Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 206L-01-123, Revision A, dated February 22, 2006; ASB No. 427-01-04, Revision A, dated March 31, 2006; and ASB No. 407-01-45, Revision B, dated April 23, 2013, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review a copy of the service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, Texas 76177.

(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) AD No. CF-2002-03R3, Revision 3, dated September 26, 2013. You may view the TCCA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2014-0643.

(j) Subject

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6300 Main Rotor Drive System.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 6, 2015. Larry M. Kelly, Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-20509 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-1051; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-171-AD; Amendment 39-18239; AD 2015-17-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports that on airplanes equipped with sharklets, discretes (used to activate the load alleviation function) are connected on various flight computers using the same ground point. In these cases, the ground point segregation is no longer effective, and a single failure could lead to loss of sharklet identification by flight computers causing a return to the wing tip fence (no sharklet configuration) performance. This AD requires modification of the sharklet ground connection. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of sharklet identification by the flight computers and subsequent reduced control of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective September 24, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-1051 or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email account.airworth [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1051.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 23, 2015 (80 FR 3520). The NPRM was prompted by reports that on airplanes equipped with sharklets, discretes (used to activate the load alleviation function) are connected on various flight computers using the same ground point. In these cases, the ground point segregation is no longer effective and a single failure could lead to loss of sharklet identification by flight computers causing a return to the wing tip fence (no sharklet configuration) performance. The NPRM proposed to require modification of the sharklet ground connection. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of sharklet identification by the flight computers and subsequent reduced control of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0186, dated August 19, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

During A320 Neo review, Airbus design office identified that on A320 family aeroplanes equipped with sharklets, discretes used to activate the load alleviation function are connected on various flight computers using the same ground point. In that case, the ground point segregation is no longer effective and a single failure could lead to loss of sharklet identification by the flight computers, inducing a return to the wing tip fence (no sharklet configuration) behaviour.

This condition, if not corrected, could lead to reduced control of the aeroplane, depending on aeroplane configuration and flight phase.

It has been determined that Airbus mod 156108 restores the correct segregation. However, since introduction of sharklet mod 160500 and mod 160023, a number of aeroplanes equipped with sharklets have been delivered without incorporating mod 156108. In addition, mod 156108 was not included in certain SBs [service bulletins] that introduce the sharklet device in service onto aeroplanes with a reinforced wing, previously operated with a wing tip fence. Airbus mod 156108 has now been introduced into Airbus SB A320-57-1186 at Rev.03 and will be introduced at next revisions of SB A320-57-1173 and SB A320-57-1187.

To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus published SB A320-27-1240 for in-service installation of mod 156108.

For the reasons described above, this AD requires modification of the sharklet ground connection.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-1051-0002.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 3520, January 23, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 3520, January 23, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 3520, January 23, 2015).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1240, dated June 18, 2014. The service information describes procedures for modification of the sharklet ground connection. 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 or AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 46 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 14 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $347 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $70,702, or $1,537 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-1051; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-17-06 Airbus: Amendment 39-18239. Docket No. FAA-2014-1051; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-171-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective September 24, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, all manufacturer serial numbers on which Airbus modification (mod) 160500 or mod 160023 has been embodied in production, and those that have been modified in service through the Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1173, A320-57-1186, or A320-57-1187, except those on which Airbus mod 156108 has been embodied in production.

(1) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.

(2) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.

(3) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by reports that on airplanes equipped with sharklets, discretes (used to activate the load alleviation function) are connected on various flight computers using the same ground point. In these cases, the ground point segregation is no longer effective, and a single failure could lead to loss of sharklet identification by flight computers causing a return to the wing tip fence (no sharklet configuration) performance. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of sharklet identification by the flight computers and subsequent reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modification

Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the sharklet ground connection, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1240, dated June 18, 2014.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(i) Related Information

Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0186, dated August 19, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-1051-0002.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1240, dated June 18, 2014.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 10, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-20383 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0364; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-041-AD; Amendment 39-18234; AD 2015-17-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter France) (Airbus Helicopters) Helicopters AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-21-01 for Eurocopter France Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters. AD 2013-21-01 required certain inspections of each tail rotor pitch horn assembly (pitch horn) for a crack, replacing a cracked pitch horn before further flight, and a one-time visual inspection of pitch horns above certain hours time-in-service (TIS). This new AD retains the requirements of AD 2013-21-01 but requires a repetitive visual inspection for all pitch horns regardless of hours TIS. This AD was prompted by a report of a crack in the yoke of a pitch horn and is intended to detect a crack in the pitch horn to prevent failure of the pitch horn, loss of the anti-torque function, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES:

This AD is effective September 24, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of October 25, 2013 (78 FR 63853, October 25, 2013).

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, Texas 76177.

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-2014-0364; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any incorporated-by-reference information, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, Texas 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

On May 30, 2014, we issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (79 FR 32881, June 9, 2014) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to remove AD 2013-21-01, Amendment 39-17625 (78 FR 63853, October 25, 2013) and add a new AD. AD 2013-21-01 applied to Eurocopter France Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters and required a one-time visual inspection of each pitch horn with 135 or more hours TIS for a crack and replacing the pitch horn if there is a crack. AD 2013-21-01 also required a dye-penetrant inspection of any pitch horn before it is installed. AD 2013-21-01 was prompted by AD No. 2013-0133, dated June 28, 2013, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350BB, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters. EASA advises of an ongoing investigation of a crack in the yoke of a pitch horn for which a cause has not been determined. The EASA AD requires repetitive visual inspections of each pitch horn for a crack and replacing the pitch horn with a serviceable assembly if a crack is found.

The NPRM proposed to continue to require the visual inspection for the pitch horn but to require it for all pitch horns regardless of hours TIS. The NPRM also proposed to require repeating the visual inspection every 165 hours TIS and changing the requirement for the dye penetration inspection so that it only applies to pitch horns that are not new. Also, since we issued AD 2013-12-01, Eurocopter France changed its name to Airbus Helicopters. The NPRM proposed to reflect that change.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (79 FR 32881, June 9, 2014).

FAA's Determination

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Interim Action

We consider this AD to be an interim action. If final action is later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

The EASA AD applies to Eurocopter Model AS350BB that does not have an FAA type certificate and therefore is not a part of this AD. The EASA AD does not apply to Eurocopter Model AS350C or AS350D1, but this AD does because those models have an FAA type certificate and may have the applicable pitch horn installed. This AD requires a dye-penetrant inspection before installing a pitch horn; the EASA AD does not.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed a Eurocopter (now Airbus Helicopters) Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB), Revision 1, dated June 25, 2013, with four different numbers. EASB No. 05.00.74 is for Model AS350B, B1, B2, B3, BA, and D helicopters; and EASB No. 05.00.65 is for Model AS355E, F, F1, F2, N, and NP helicopters. EASB No. 05.00.74 and EASB No. 05.00.65 are co-published as one document along with EASB No. 05.00.49 and EASB No. 05.00.44, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD. These EASBs specify Airbus Helicopters has been informed of a case of a crack on the yoke of a pitch horn, which may lead to failure of the pitch horn, resulting in loss of the anti-torque function. These EASBs specify a check for cracks on the yokes of the two pitch horns and specifies replacing any cracked pitch horn. These EASBs state that it may be necessary to modify the log card of the tail rotor blade assembly due to some of the pitch horn part numbers being recorded incorrectly. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

EASA classified these EASBs as mandatory and issued EASA AD No. 2013-0133, dated June 28, 2013, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD will affect 938 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work hour. We estimate 0.1 work hours to visually inspect a pitch horn for a total cost of $8.50 per helicopter or $7,973 for the fleet, per inspection cycle. We estimate 1 work hour to do a dye-penetrant inspection for a total cost of $85 per helicopter. We estimate 1 work hour to replace a part, if necessary, and a cost for required parts of $1,946, for a total cost of $2,031 per helicopter.

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

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

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-21-01, Amendment 39-17625 (78 FR 63853, October 25, 2013), Docket No. FAA-2013-0878, Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-033-AD, and adding the following new AD: 2015-17-01 Airbus Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter France) (Airbus Helicopters): Amendment 39-18234; Docket No. FAA-2014-0364; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-041-AD. (a) Applicability

This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters with tail rotor hub pitch horn (pitch horn) assembly, part number (P/N) 350A121368.01, 350A121368.02, 350A121368.03, or 350A121368.04, with a pitch horn, P/N 350A121368.XX, where XX stands for a two-digit dash number, installed, certificated in any category. The pitch horn may be marked with either the pitch horn assembly P/N or pitch horn P/N.

(b) Unsafe Condition

This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in the yoke of a pitch horn. This condition could result in failure of a pitch horn, loss of the anti-torque function, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

This AD supersedes 2013-21-01, Amendment 39-17625 (78 FR 63853, October 25, 2013).

(d) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective September 24, 2015.

(e) Compliance

You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

(f) Required Actions

(1) For parts with 155 or less hours time-in-service (TIS), before exceeding 165 hours TIS, or for parts with more than 155 hours TIS, within 10 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 165 hours TIS, visually inspect each pitch horn for a crack in the areas shown in Figure 1 of Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 05.00.74 or No. 05.00.65, both Revision 1 and both dated June 25, 2013, as appropriate for your model helicopter.

(2) If there is a crack, before further flight, replace the pitch horn with an airworthy pitch horn.

(3) Do not install a pitch horn, P/N 350A121368 (any dash number), with more than 0 hours TIS on any helicopter unless it has passed a dye penetrant inspection for a crack in the areas shown in Figure 1 of Eurocopter EASB No. 05.00.74 or No. 05.00.65, both Revision 1 and both dated June 25, 2013, as appropriate for your model helicopter.

(g) Special Flight Permits

Special flight permits are prohibited.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, Texas 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(i) Additional Information

The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2013-0133, dated June 28, 2013. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2014-0364.

(j) Subject

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6400 Tail Rotor.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on October 25, 2013 (78 FR 63853, October 25, 2013).

(i) Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.74, Revision 1, dated June 25, 2013.

(ii) Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.65, Revision 1, dated June 25, 2013.

Note 1 to paragraph (k)(3) of this AD:

Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.74 and No. 05.00.65, both Revision 1, and both dated June 25, 2013, are co-published as one document along with Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.49 and No. 05.00.44, both Revision 1, and both dated June 25, 2013, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(4) For Eurocopter service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub.

(5) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, Texas 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.

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

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 6, 2015. Larry M. Kelly, Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-20510 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0492; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-232-AD; Amendment 39-18237; AD 2015-17-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of a disconnect between the elevator lever and control rod. This AD requires replacement of left and right fixed control rods and lever assemblies of the elevator control system. We are issuing this AD to prevent a disconnect between the elevator lever and control rod, which could lead to un-commanded elevator movement of the associated control surface, a large difference between the position of the left and the right elevator control surfaces, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane and degradation of the structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective September 24, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0492; or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone: 514-855-5000; fax: 514-855-7401; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0492.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7318; fax: 516-794-5531.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 24, 2015 (80 FR 15528).

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-44, dated December 9, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. The MCAI states:

During an engineering review of the Elevator Control system, it was discovered that a disconnect between the elevator lever and control rod could lead to uncommanded elevator movement of the associated control surface. This uncommanded movement may cause a large difference between the position of the left and the right elevator control surface resulting in reduced controllability of the aeroplane and degradation of the structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer.

This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of the existing elevator lever assemblies and control rods with newly designed ones, which will prevent a disconnect between the components of the elevator control system should a failure occur.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0492-0002.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80 FR 15528, March 24, 2015), and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Include Latest Revision of the Service Information in This AD

SkyWest Airlines and Mesa Airlines Inc. requested that we include Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision C, dated February 13, 2015, in paragraph (g) of this AD. Both commenters also requested that we revise paragraph (h) of this AD to include credit for actions performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision B, dated October 10, 2014. SkyWest Airlines indicated that Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision C, dated February 13, 2015, includes changes to some steps and addition of others that deal with the rigging pins P2 and P3. SkyWest Airlines pointed out that Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision C, dated February 13, 2015, also makes a change to Sheet 1 of 1 of Figure 4, which consists of adding part numbers to the item descriptions.

We agree with the request to include Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision C, dated February 13, 2015, in paragraph (g) of this AD and revise paragraph (h) of this AD to include credit for actions performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision B, dated October 10, 2014. Although some steps have changed, the procedures remain the same in both revisions of the service information. We have revised paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD accordingly.

Conclusion

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 15528, March 24, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 15528, March 24, 2015).

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision C, dated February 13, 2015. The service information describes procedures for replacing the elevator lever assemblies and control rods. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 400 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 14 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $6,712 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $3,160,800, or $7,902 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0492; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-17-04 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18237. Docket No. FAA-2015-0492; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-232-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective September 24, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.

(1) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers (S/N) 10002 through 10337 inclusive.

(2) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, S/Ns 15001 through 15298 inclusive.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by reports of a disconnect between the elevator lever and control rod. We are issuing this AD to prevent a disconnect between the elevator lever and control rod, which could lead to un-commanded elevator movement of the associated control surface, a large difference between the position of the left and the right elevator control surfaces, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane and degradation of the structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement of Elevator Lever Assemblies and Control Rods

Within 9,200 flight hours or 5 years, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD: Replace the left and right fixed control rods and lever assemblies of the elevator control system with newly designed control rods and lever assemblies, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision C, dated February 13, 2015.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, dated December 12, 2013; Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision A, dated April 1, 2014; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision B, dated October 10, 2014. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

(j) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-44, dated December 9, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0492-0002.

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

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-062, Revision C, dated February 13, 2015.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone: 514-855-5000; fax: 514-855-7401; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com.

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 10, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-20366 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Parts 2 and 157 [Docket No. RM12-11-003; Order No. 790-B] Revisions to Auxiliary Installations, Replacement Facilities, and Siting and Maintenance Regulations AGENCY:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule, order on clarification; correction.

SUMMARY:

This document contains corrections to the final rule (RM12-11-003) which was published in the Federal Register of Friday, July 24, 2015 (80 FR 43944). The final rule amended regulations to: provide pre-granted authority under a new paragraph to abandon or replace auxiliary facilities, subject to certain conditions; permit auxiliary facilities that cannot meet the conditions for the pre-granted abandonment authority in the new paragraph to be abandoned under the blanket certificate regulations, subject to those regulations' requirements; and permit replacement facilities constructed under the regulations to be abandoned under the blanket certificate regulations, subject to those regulations' requirements.

DATES:

Effective October 7, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Liberty, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6491, [email protected]. Gordon Wagner, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8947, [email protected]. Howard Wheeler, Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8688, [email protected]. Shannon Jones, Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6410, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Revisions to Auxiliary Installations, Replacement Facilities, and Siting and Maintenance Regulations Docket No. RM12-11-003 Errata Notice

On July 16, 2015, the Commission issued a Final Rule in the above captioned proceeding. Revisions to Auxiliary Installations, Replacement Facilities, and Siting and Maintenance Regulations, 152 FERC ¶ 61,049 (2015). This errata notice makes a correction to the Final Rule as issued.

In FR Doc. 2015-17919 appearing on page 43949 in the Federal Register of Friday, July 24, 2015, the following correction is made:

1. On page 43949, in the second column, § 157.216(b)(2)(i)(A) of the regulatory text is revised to read as follows:

“(A) Will not exceed the cost limit in § 157.208(d) for activities under the prior notice provisions;”

Dated: August 14, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-20538 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 317 [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0567] RIN 0910-AG37 Designating Additions to the Current List of Tropical Diseases in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Final order.

SUMMARY:

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) authorizes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) to award priority review vouchers (PRVs) to tropical disease product applicants when the applications meet certain criteria. The FD&C Act lists the diseases that are considered to be tropical diseases for purposes of obtaining PRVs, and also provides for Agency expansion of that list to include other diseases that satisfy the definition of “tropical diseases” as set forth in the FD&C Act. FDA has determined that Chagas disease and neurocysticercosis satisfy this definition, and therefore is adding them to the list of designated tropical diseases whose product applications may result in the award of PRVs. Sponsors submitting certain applications for the treatment of Chagas disease and neurocysticercosis may be eligible to receive a PRV if such applications are approved by FDA.

DATES:

This order is effective August 20, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Submit electronic comments on additional diseases suggested for designation to www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on additional diseases suggested for designation to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kristiana Brugger, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6262, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3601; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background: Priority Review Voucher Program II. Criteria for Expansion of the List of Tropical Diseases A. No Significant Market in Developed Nations B. Disproportionately Affects Poor and Marginalized Populations III. Diseases Being Designated A. Chagas Disease B. Neurocysticercosis IV. Process for Requesting Additional Diseases To Be Added to the List V. Paperwork Reduction Act VI. References I. Background: Priority Review Voucher Program

Much of the global burden of disease falls on populations who lack the resources to develop, encourage development of, or purchase disease preventions or treatments. For this reason, many of the diseases afflicting these populations do not receive the same level of innovation investment as diseases afflicting wealthier or more empowered populations.

Section 524 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360n), which was added by section 1102 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA), is designed to address the lack of treatment development incentives for such tropical diseases. It uses a PRV incentive to encourage the development of new drugs for prevention and treatment of certain diseases that, in the aggregate, affect millions of people throughout the world. Specifically, section 524 of the FD&C Act defines the term “tropical disease product application” and sets forth criteria which, if met, enable those who submit an application for a tropical disease product to be eligible to receive a PRV upon approval of that tropical disease product application. To be eligible for a PRV, the tropical disease product application must meet all of the following criteria:

• The application must be a “human drug application,” as defined in section 735(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379g(1)).

• The application must be for the “prevention or treatment of a tropical disease,” as defined by statute.

• The application must be deemed eligible for priority review by the Secretary of HHS.

• The application must be approved after the date of enactment of FDAAA (i.e., September 27, 2007) for use in the prevention, detection, or treatment of a tropical disease.

• The application must be for “a human drug, no active ingredient (including any ester or salt of the active ingredient) of which has been approved in any other application under section 505(b)(1) [21 U.S.C. 355(b)(1)] or section 351 of the [PHS Act].”

Section 524(a)(4) of the FD&C Act. In particular, the requirement that an application must be eligible for priority review demonstrates the PRV program's intent to reward tropical disease product applications that have the potential to demonstrate significant improvements in safety or effectiveness in the treatment or prevention of tropical diseases (Ref. 1).

FDA will award a PRV to the application holder upon the approval of a qualifying tropical disease product application that meets the criteria previously listed. The voucher entitles the holder to a priority review of a human drug application, submitted under section 505(b)(1) of the FD&C Act or section 351 of the PHS Act, of the voucher holder's choosing. Once awarded to the application holder, the PRV may be transferred to another entity, and the original holder may receive consideration (including payment) for the transfer. To redeem the voucher, a PRV holder must notify FDA of its intent to use the PRV at least 90 days prior to the submission of the application for which the PRV will be used. This notification constitutes a legally binding agreement to pay the user fee that must be applied to applications using a PRV.

Section 524(a)(3) of the FD&C Act lists the following diseases as tropical diseases qualifying for a PRV:

• Tuberculosis • Malaria • Blinding trachoma • Buruli ulcer • Cholera • Dengue/Dengue haemorrhagic fever • Dracunculiasis (guinea-worm disease) • Fascioliasis • Human African trypanosomiasis • Leishmaniasis • Leprosy • Lymphatic filariasis • Onchocerciasis • Schistosomiasis • Soil transmitted helminthiasis • Yaws • Filoviruses In addition, section 524(a)(3)(R) of the FD&C Act authorizes the Secretary to expand by order the list of tropical diseases to include “[a]ny other infectious disease for which there is no significant market in developed nations and that disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations[,]” and that is the purpose of this order. II. Criteria for Expansion of the List of Tropical Diseases

On December 12, 2008, FDA convened a public hearing, at which the public provided suggestions regarding the following topics: (1) Criteria that should be used to determine the eligibility of an infectious disease for designation as a tropical disease, (2) the process that should be used to make tropical disease designations, and (3) recommendations for specific diseases that should be designated as tropical diseases. A number of participants in the public meeting commented that, given the lack of definitive data for some diseases, as well as the lack of consensus on how these criteria should be defined, FDA should use a flexible approach in determining whether specific diseases meet the criteria.

FDA agrees with the use of a flexible approach to tropical disease designation and is proposing that a scientifically informed, qualitative assessment of disease candidates is appropriate. FDA also is establishing a public docket that will continuously remain open to receive future suggestions for tropical disease designations under section 524 of the FD&C Act. The Agency proposes to review the contents of this public docket periodically and to take action to designate additional diseases when appropriate.

As stated previously, section 524(a)(3)(R) of the FD&C Act authorizes the Secretary to designate by order “[a]ny other infectious disease for which there is no significant market in developed nations and that disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations” as a “tropical disease.” In the following paragraphs, FDA sets forth its interpretation of this provision and the criteria we propose to use in determining which diseases may be designated by order of the Secretary as “tropical diseases” under section 524.

A. No Significant Market in Developed Nations 1. “Developed Nations”

In interpreting the term “developed nations,” FDA acknowledges at the outset that the standards for determining a nation's level of development, as well as the threshold for a “developed” country, are the subject of debate. Some nations may score well in some markers of development (e.g., gross domestic product) and poorly in others (e.g., sanitation), leading to disagreements regarding which measures of development should serve as dominant indicators. After also examining the International Monetary Fund (IMF)'s list of advanced economies (Ref. 2) and the United Nations (U.N.)'s human development index (Ref. 3), the Agency is proposing to use a country's presence on the World Bank's 1 list of “high income economies” (Ref. 4) as evidence that the country should be considered a “developed nation” for “tropical disease” determination purposes. Similarly, FDA will use a country's presence on the World Bank's list of “low income economies” (id.) as evidence that the country should not be considered a “developed nation” for purposes of “tropical disease” determination.

1 The “World Bank” is a term used to refer collectively to the International Development Association and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which are two of the five organizations that comprise the World Bank Group.

FDA recognizes that there is a correlation between economic strength (particularly purchasing power) and the market incentive for drug creation: People in high-income economies are more likely to be able to afford disease treatments and, thus, drug companies have an incentive to create products that will be in demand in those countries. The World Bank list of high-income economies is calculated based on gross national income per capita, and, importantly, it thus reflects wealth as a primary basis for categorization. FDA's recognition of the role of wealth is why we deemed the U.N. development index less helpful: It measures development across a broad array of categories (e.g., mean years of schooling) that, while informative, are less directly correlated with the drug development incentives reflected in the statutory scheme. Indeed, the U.N. itself has acknowledged that “[t]he [human development index] was created to emphasize that people and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth alone” (Ref. 5). And although the IMF's list of “advanced economies” reflects purchasing power to some degree, the World Bank calculus is more transparent and predictable than the IMF's calculus, and the U.S. government routinely uses the World Bank lists when determining a country's eligibility for Generalized System of Preferences benefits for trade in goods (Ref. 6).

2. “No Significant Market”

The list of tropical diseases in section 524(a)(3) of the FD&C includes “[a]ny other infectious disease for which there is no significant market in developed nations. . .designated by order of the Secretary.” As an initial matter, the Agency notes that “infectious diseases,” as such do not have markets—but drugs for the treatment or prevention of infectious diseases do. Because the statute offers vouchers for applications for drugs for either the treatment or prevention of infectious diseases, it is reasonable to assume that “no significant market” can refer to drugs for the treatment or prevention of infectious diseases. Thus, FDA will analyze the market for drugs for both the treatment and prevention of infectious diseases for a particular infectious disease.

The threshold for what constitutes a “significant market” for drugs for the treatment or prevention of infectious diseases is difficult to quantify. Because of the challenges in providing a rigid definition of this term, FDA proposes that the following factors be considered in determining whether a “significant market” exists in developed countries.

a. Occurrence of the Disease in Developed Nations

As discussed previously, market forces are important drivers of drug development. The purpose of section 524 of the FD&C Act is to provide an incentive (through a PRV) for innovation where there otherwise would be an insufficient financial or market incentive to invest in developing drugs for tropical diseases. The market for many FDA-approved products includes situations in which individuals (often reimbursed by their insurers) purchase the products for use by a specific patient. This reflects what we will refer to as the “direct” market, and the direct market for a drug in a developed country can often be estimated by assessing the occurrence of a particular disease in that country.2

2 Exceptions may occur for diseases that have a low incidence in developed countries through use of preventive drugs or biologics. Thus, although the disease incidence is lower in developed countries these are less likely to be the types of diseases for which section 524 of the FD&C Act is intended to spur innovation.

If the prevalence of a disease in developed countries is less than 0.1 percent of the population of those countries, it is unlikely that ordinary market forces will offer a sufficient incentive to drive the development of new preventions or treatments. Thus, it is unlikely that there will be a “significant market” for the disease's treatment in those countries. Accordingly, FDA has decided to use a disease prevalence rate of 0.1 percent of the population as a factor for aiding in the determination of whether a “significant market” may exist for a disease's treatment.

b. The Existence of a Sizeable Indirect Market for the Tropical Disease Drug (e.g., Government, Including the Military) That Would Constitute a Financial Incentive for Drug Development

As discussed previously, the market for many FDA-approved products is the “direct” market, involving patients purchasing drugs for their own use. However, some drugs may have a sizeable “indirect” market composed of, for example, government entities or nongovernmental organizations that wish to purchase and distribute a drug for the treatment or prevention of an infectious disease, often for public health reasons, to a particular group of people. Indeed, for some diseases identified as high priorities for public health preparedness, governmental entities have initiated programs to provide support for product development and/or stockpiling (Ref. 7).3 In such cases, FDA would consider that market as a factor in determining whether a significant market for a drug for the treatment or prevention of an infectious diseases disease exists in developed nations.

3 For example, certain diseases have been prioritized for medical countermeasure development and investment (see Ref. 7) or are listed as priority pathogens by government entities such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Center for Disease Control or Prevention, and military programs (Refs. 8, 9, and 10). These and other indications of potential priority designation that could affect governmental resource allocation may be taken into account in assessment of whether a market exists in developed countries.

B. Disproportionately Affects Poor and Marginalized Populations

As with the term “no significant market in developed nations,” FDA has elected to analyze multiple factors—none of which, alone, invariably will be outcome-determinative—in assessing whether a given disease meets the requirement of “disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations” for classification as a “tropical disease” under section 524 of the FD&C Act. Those factors are the following:

1. The Proportion of Global Disability-Adjusted Life Years for the Disease That Is Attributable to Developing Countries

A disability-adjusted life year (DALY) measurement is not a direct measure of the prevalence of the disease; rather, it is a measure of the impact of that disease on a given population. “One DALY can be thought of as one lost year of 'healthy' life” (Ref. 11). An estimate of disease-related morbidity (a term which, as used in this order, refers to the state of being diseased (see Ref. 12)) and mortality in affected countries thus can be made by assessing available information about the DALY burden of a particular disease. “DALYs for a disease or health condition are calculated as the sum of the Years of Life Lost. . .due to premature mortality in the population and the Years Lost due to Disability. . .for people living with the health condition or its consequences” (Ref. 11). DALYs are an important measurement, enabling FDA to weigh “tropical disease” eligibility for those diseases that, although they may be present to some degree in developed countries (e.g., because of travel or immigration), cause much more harm to the public health of developing countries.

2. The Relative Burden of the Disease in the Most Impoverished Populations Within the Countries in Which It Is Found

If a disease's prevalence is high in populations who cannot afford treatment and low in populations that can, there likely will be little market incentive for drug companies to create new treatments. In light of section 524 of the FD&C Act's intent to create treatment development incentives, as well as its clear goal of improving the health of impoverished populations, FDA will consider the demographic distribution of a disease in determining whether it should be designated as a “tropical disease” for the purposes of section 524 of the FD&C Act.

3. The Relative Burden of the Disease in Infants, Children, or Other Marginalized Segments of the Population (e.g., Women, the Elderly) Within the Countries in Which It Is Found

One of the clear goals of section 524 of the FD&C Act is improving the health of marginalized populations, who generally suffer poorer health outcomes than their non-marginalized neighbors, even within the same country. To “marginalize” is to place (or keep) a person or population in a powerless or unimportant position (see, e.g., Ref. 13). Individuals or groups may be marginalized for any number of reasons, including, for example, gender, age, or extreme poverty. Marginalized populations generally lack a meaningful voice in societal decisionmaking, including decisions relating to the acquisition, distribution, and use of health resources. These populations, therefore, are less likely to have their health needs met and less likely to have the resources or political power needed to effect change in those aspects of health policy that most affect them—including incentivizing governments or private industry to offer disease treatments. Understanding the relative prevalence of a disease in these populations will help FDA determine whether treatment development for that disease would be spurred by the provision of section 524 of the FD&C Act's PRV incentive.

4. Designation by the World Health Organization as a Neglected Tropical Disease

The World Health Organization (WHO), in its role as the directing and coordinating authority on international health within the U.N. system, has identified a list of diseases that it refers to as “neglected tropical diseases” (Ref. 14). According to the WHO, these diseases “are strongly associated with poverty” and tend to affect those with “little political voice”; rarely receive the attention of disease treatment innovators or the broader international community; and often flourish in tropical climates (id.). The WHO's list includes 12 of the 17 enumerated diseases in section 524(a)(3) of the FD&C Act (see Ref. 15). Because the WHO's list of “neglected tropical diseases” includes many of the types of diseases for which section 524 was designed to incentivize treatment development, FDA believes it is reasonable to consider WHO's “neglected tropical disease” designations in determining whether a disease should be designated as a “tropical disease” for purposes of section 524 of the FD&C Act.

III. Diseases Being Designated

FDA has considered a number of diseases recommended in response to the Federal Register document announcing the December 12, 2008, public meeting (see 73 FR 66050, November 6, 2008), by meeting participants or others directing communications to FDA on the same topic. Based on an assessment using the criteria proposed previously, FDA has determined that the following diseases will be designated as “tropical diseases” under section 524 of the FD&C Act:

• Chagas disease.

• Neurocysticercosis.

FDA's rationale for adding these diseases to the list is discussed in the analyses that follow. A. Chagas Disease

Chagas disease, also known as American trypanosomiasis, is a vector-borne parasitic disease caused by the protozoan Trypanosoma cruzi (Ref. 16). After the initial infection, a 2-month “acute” phase occurs, during which there are some antiparasitic drugs that can be used for treatment in some patients (id.). Treatment efficacy generally decreases with length of infection, and if the disease is not cured during the initial “acute” infection phase, the chronic infection lingers over the next several years or decades, often causing organ and tissue damage (id.). For example, some Chagas disease sufferers who contract the disease during childhood die in early adulthood due to heart arrhythmias or other effects of organ damage. Efforts to reduce Chagas disease center around controlling the spread of the vector insects (e.g., through insecticide and roof repair) and protecting people from insect bites (e.g., through bed net use) (id.).

Chagas disease has a disproportionate effect on poor and marginalized populations. Developing countries in Central and South America suffer most of the global DALYs lost because of the disease (id.). Estimates vary, but approximately 8 million people are believed to be infected in Mexico, Central America, and South America (Ref. 17). Within Chagas-endemic countries, the disease often affects rural and/or poor populations who live in the mud huts that also are inhabited by the vector insects (Ref. 16). WHO has designated Chagas as a neglected tropical disease (Ref. 15).

There also is no significant market for Chagas disease treatment in developed nations. Based on estimates derived by applying published seroprevalence data to immigrant population estimates in the United States, it is estimated that there are just over 300,000 persons infected with T. cruzi in the United States (Refs. 17, 18, and 19). The number of persons with chronic cases for whom definitive recommendations for treatment would apply is likely less than 300,000. Transmission and acute cases of Chagas disease would be considered unlikely either in the United States or in other developed countries. The most common insect vector that transmits the parasite, the triatomine bug, is found mostly in Central and South America. The main risk of Chagas transmission to uninfected persons in developed countries is due to mother-to-child transmission, or blood transfusions or organ donations where the donor has lived in or visited Chagas-endemic countries—although there have been a few reports of vector-borne Chagas infecting people in the United States (Refs. 16 and 17).

There are no approved vaccines or other preventative therapies for the disease, either in the United States or elsewhere. The only drugs used to treat Chagas are benznidazole and nifurtimox, which are not approved in the United States for this use. In addition to the lack of a commercial market in developed countries (presumably because of the low prevalence of disease), there does not seem to be a sizeable indirect (e.g., government) market for Chagas treatments either—presumably because of the geographical limitations of the disease. As a general matter, Chagas-endemic countries are developing countries in Central and South America, and thus neither persons with Chagas disease nor their governments are likely to be in a position to provide a financial incentive for treatment development. Given the disease's geographical limitations and its prevalence in non-touristed rural areas, it is unlikely that the travelers' market would be a sufficient incentive to encourage treatment development for Chagas.

Given the factors described in this document, FDA has determined that Chagas disease meets both statutory criteria of “no significant market in developed nations” and “disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations.” Therefore, FDA is designating Chagas disease as a tropical disease under section 524 of the FD&C Act.

B. Neurocysticercosis

Cysticercosis is a disease caused by infection with Taenia solium, a tapeworm of the phylum Platyhelminthes, and is contracted when a person ingests the tapeworm eggs. After a person ingests the eggs, the tapeworm enters the larval stage and begins to infect the host's tissues. The most severe form of the disease, called neurocysticercosis, occurs when larvae enter the central nervous system and establish cysts that can cause epilepsy (see, e.g., Ref. 20). Treatment guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology recommend treatment with anti-helminthic drugs like albendazole, with consideration for adjunctive corticosteroid therapy (Ref. 20).

Neurocysticercosis disproportionately affects poor and marginalized populations. Indeed, patients who have infection with T. solium generally have similar socioeconomic and demographic characteristics to those patients with soil transmitted helminthiasis, a disease already on the statutory list of “tropical diseases” in section 524 of the FD&C Act. As of the late 1990s, approximately 50 million people worldwide were estimated to harbor the tapeworm T. solium (Ref. 21), most of them living in poverty in the world's poorest countries that lack effective systems for meat inspection and adequate sanitation (Refs. 22 and 23). Estimates of the number of people who have epilepsy caused by neurocysticercosis ranges from 450,000 to 1,350,000 in Central and South America and from 300,000 to 4,600,000 in sub-saharan Africa (Ref. 23). Neurocysticercosis is believed to contribute to high levels of human morbidity, notably epilepsy, though efforts are underway to adequately characterize an estimate of DALY for neurocysticercosis (Ref. 24). Notably, cysticercosis is included on WHO's list of neglected tropical diseases (Ref. 15).

FDA also has determined that neurocysticercosis products have no significant market in developed nations. Although the disease does occur in the United States, estimates of annual incidence rates in the general U.S. population are low, at approximately 0.2 cases per 100,000 population. Incidence rates are much higher among Hispanics living in the United States, who most likely acquired the tapeworm in cysticercosis-endemic areas of Central and South America (Ref. 25), with estimates ranging between 3.1 and 5.8 cases per 100,000 Hispanic population (Ref. 26). FDA also is unaware of evidence suggesting any sizeable military, government, or other indirect market for neurocysticercosis products.

In view of the disease characteristics discussed previously, FDA considers the statutory criteria for addition of neurocysticercosis to the list of tropical diseases in section 524 of the FD&C Act to be satisfied. This addition is effective upon the publication of this order.

IV. Process for Requesting Additional Diseases To Be Added to the List

The purpose of this order is to add diseases to the list of tropical diseases that FDA has found to meet the criteria in section 524(a)(3)(R) of the FD&C Act. By expanding the list with this order, FDA does not mean to preclude the future addition of other diseases to this list. To facilitate the consideration of future additions to the list, FDA is establishing a public docket (see http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0567) through which interested persons may submit requests for additional diseases to be added to the list. Such requests should be accompanied by information to document that the disease meets the criteria set forth in section 524(a)(3)(R) of the FD&C Act. FDA will periodically review these requests, and, when appropriate, expand the list.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

This final order establishes a public docket through which interested persons may submit requests for additional diseases to be added to the list of tropical diseases that FDA has found to meet the criteria in section 524(a)(3)(R) of the FD&C Act. This request for information is exempt from Office of Management and Budget review under 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Specifically, “[f]acts or opinions submitted in response to general solicitations of comments from the public, published in the Federal Register or other publications, regardless of the form or format thereof” are exempt, “provided that no person is required to supply specific information pertaining to the commenter, other than that necessary for self-identification, as a condition of the agency's full consideration of the comment.”

VI. References

The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) 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 the Web site addresses, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal Register.)

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Guidance for Industry: Expedited Programs For Serious Conditions—Drugs and Biologics” (available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm358301.pdf), 2014. 2. IMF, “World Economic Outlook: Recovery Strengthens, Remains Uneven,” Table B1 (available at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/01/pdf/tblpartb.pdf). 3. U.N. Development Programme, “Human Development Index (HDI)” (available at http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi). 4. The World Bank, “Country and Lending Groups” (available at http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-and-lending-groups). 5. U.N. Development Programme, “Frequently Asked Questions—Human Development Index (HDI)” (available at http://hdr.undp.org/en/faq-page/human-development-index-hdi#t292n36). 6. Congressional Research Service, “Generalized System of Preferences: Background and Renewal Debate,” pp. 7, 11 (available at http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33663.pdf). 7. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE) Implementation Plan,” December 2012 (available at http://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/mcm/phemce/Documents/2012-PHEMCE-Implementation-Plan.pdf). 8. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID Emerging Infectious Diseases/Pathogens (available at http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/biodefenserelated/biodefense/pages/cata.aspx). 9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Bioterrorism Agents/Diseases (available at http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/agentlist-category.asp). 10. Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense, Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program (JVAP) (available at http://www.jpeocbd.osd.mil/packs/Default.aspx?pg=1208). 11. WHO, “Metrics: Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALY)” (available at http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/metrics_daly/en/). 12. Medline Plus/Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary Online, “Morbidity” (available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/medlineplus/morbidity). 13. Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online, “Marginalize” (available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marginalize). 14. WHO, “First WHO Report on Neglected Tropical Diseases: Working to Overcome the Global Impact of Neglected Tropical Diseases” (available at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241564090_eng.pdf). 15. WHO, “Neglected Tropical Diseases: Diseases Covered by NTD Department” (available at http://www.who.int/neglected_diseases/diseases/en/). 16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Parasites—American Trypanosomiasis (also known as Chagas Disease): Detailed FAQs” (available at http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/chagas/gen_info/detailed.html). 17. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Parasites—American Trypanosomiasis (also known as Chagas Disease): Epidemiology and Risk Factors,” (available at http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/chagas/epi.html). 18. Bern, C. and S.P. Montgomery, “An Estimate of the Burden of Chagas Disease in the United States,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, 49:e52-54, 2009 (available at http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/5/e52.full). 19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Congenital Transmission of Chagas Disease—Virginia, 2010,” MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 61(26):477-479, July 6, 2012 (available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6126a1.htm?s_cid=mm6126a1_w). 20. Baird, R.A., S. Weibe, J.R. Zunt, et al., “Evidence-Based Guideline: Treatment of Parenchymal Neurocysticercosis,” Neurology, 80:1424-1429, 2013 (available at http://www.neurology.org/content/80/15/1424.full.pdf). 21. White, A.C., Jr., “Neurcysticercosis: A Major Cause of Neurological Disease Worldwide,” Clinical Infectious Disease, 24:101-115, 1997 (available at http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/2/101.long). 22. Institute of Medicine, “The Causes and Impacts of Neglected Tropical and Zoonotic Diseases: Opportunities for Integrated Intervention Strategies,” Washington, DC: The National Academies Press (available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62507/pdf/TOC.pdf). 23. Mewara, A., K. Goyal, and R. Sehgal, “Neurocysticercosis: A Disease of Neglect,” Tropical Parasitology, 3(2):106-113, 2013 (available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3889086/?report=printable). 24. Bhattarai, R., H. Carabin, and C. Budke, “The Burden of Cysticercosis,” Novel Aspects on Cysticercosis and Neurocysticercosis, H.F. Sibat, ed. (available at http://www.intechopen.com/books/novel-aspects-on-cysticercosis-and-neurocysticercosis/the-burden-of-cysticercosis). 25. Wallin, M.T. and J.F. Kurtzke, “Neurocysticercosis in the United States: Review of an Important Emerging Infection,” Neurology, 63:1559-1564, 2004 (available at http://www.neurology.org/content/63/9/1559.long). 26. O'Neal, S., J. Noh, P. Wilkins, et al, “Taenia solium Tapeworm Infection, Oregon, 2006-2009,” Emerging Infectious Disease, 17(6):1030-1036, 2011 (available at http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/17/6/10-1397_article).
Dated: August 14, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-20554 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Part 982 [Docket No. FR-5453-F-02] RIN 2577-AC86 Housing Choice Voucher Program: Streamlining the Portability Process AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule amends HUD's regulations governing portability in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. Portability is a feature of the HCV program that allows an eligible family with a housing choice voucher to use that voucher to lease a unit anywhere in the United States where there is a public housing agency (PHA) operating an HCV program. The purpose of HUD's changes to the portability regulations is to enable PHAs to better serve families and expand housing opportunities by improving portability processes.

DATES:

Effective: September 21, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Becky Primeaux, Director, Housing Voucher and Management Operations Division, Office of Housing Choice Vouchers, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4216, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone number 202-708-0477 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

The purpose of this final rule is to improve the portability process of the HCV program. Under the HCV program, the participating family is free to choose any housing that meets the requirements of the program. As a means to enable housing choice and mobility to encourage social and economic integration, the HCV program offers voucher portability; that is, the ability of a voucher holder to use the voucher assistance outside the jurisdiction of the PHA that initially issues the family its voucher. While portability offers an important mechanism to increase housing choice, this feature has not been maximized by PHAs and participating families because the current process for allowing a family to move from one jurisdiction to another is time consuming and burdensome. HUD recognizes that for the HCV program's goals to support mobility and housing choice to be realized, the regulations governing the portability process must be clarified so that the burden on families and the PHA is reduced. This final rule completes the rulemaking process, which commenced in 2012, to revise the existing portability regulations to streamline the portability process and facilitate the ability of participating families to move to the jurisdiction of their choice.

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

The key regulatory changes by this final rule include:

• Removing the mandatory absorption requirement discussed in the proposed rule and clarifying the notification requirement for mandatory voucher suspension;

• Requiring an initial PHA to notify the local HUD office within 10 business days of a determination to deny a portability move based on insufficient funding;

• Providing that the voucher issued by the receiving PHA to the family may not expire before 30 calendar days has passed from the expiration date of the initial PHA's voucher;

• Requiring briefings for all participating on how portability works and the benefits of living in low-poverty census tracts; and

• Allowing a family to choose the receiving PHA to administer their voucher should they choose to use portability.

Please see Section III of this preamble, entitled “Changes at the Final Rule Stage” for a more detailed discussion of all the changes proposed by this rule. C. Costs and Benefits

The changes made by this final rule are designed to minimize burden for PHAs and participating HCV families and thereby increase the ability of participating families to live in areas of their choice or relocate to a new area for employment opportunities or to gain access to preferred schools for their children. In addition, the improved portability process contributes to helping victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking have access to the resources necessary to relocate to a safe, stable home away from an abuser. Further, moves to areas with relatively low concentrations of neighborhood poverty have shown to relay important benefits to housing choice voucher families, in particular mental and physical health for adults and long-term educational and earning gains for young children. HUD recognizes that some policies may increase burden for some PHAs; however, the added clarity to the portability process afforded by this final rule is expected to improve the portability process and reduce the burden on families and PHAs.

The streamlining changes do not add any substantial cost to the HCV program.

II. Background—the March 28, 2012, Proposed Rule

On March 28, 2012, at 77 FR 18731, HUD published a rule in the Federal Register that proposed to amend HUD's regulations governing portability in the HCV program. The HCV program is the Federal Government's largest program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. The HCV program is authorized by section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1473f(o)) (1937 Act), and the HCV program regulations are found in 24 CFR part 982.

Housing choice vouchers are administered locally by PHAs. PHAs receive Federal funds from HUD to administer the HCV program. Under the HCV program, housing assistance is provided on behalf of the participating family who is responsible for finding a suitable housing unit of their choice where the owner agrees to rent under the program. The participant is free to choose any rental housing, including single family homes, townhouses, and apartments, that meets the requirements of the program and is not limited to units located in subsidized housing projects. Under certain circumstances, if authorized by the PHA, a family may use its voucher to purchase a modest home.

A housing subsidy is paid to the landlord directly by the PHA on behalf of the participating family. The family then pays the difference between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program. The PHA determines the amount that the family will contribute toward rent, which is generally 30 percent of its adjusted annual income. A key feature of the HCV program is the mobility of the voucher assistance. Section 8(r) of the 1937 Act provides that HCV participants may choose a unit that meets program requirements anywhere in the United States, provided that a PHA administering the tenant-based program has jurisdiction over the area in which the unit is located.

The term “portability” refers to the process of leasing a dwelling unit with tenant-based housing voucher assistance outside of the jurisdiction of the PHA that initially issued the family its voucher (the initial PHA). The HCV regulations, found at 24 CFR 982.353 through 982.355, detail where a family may move and the responsibilities of the initial PHA and the receiving PHA (the PHA with jurisdiction over the area to which the family desires to move). Situations have arisen over time that caused HUD to identify several issues that may delay or impede the ability of families to relocate with their voucher.

This final rule takes into consideration public comment received on the March 28, 2012, proposed rule and: (1) More clearly delineates the roles of initial and receiving PHAs; (2) improves accountability in portability billing arrangements between PHAs; and (3) allows families to more easily search for and lease a rental unit in their desired location.

III. Changes at the Final Rule Stage

In response to public comment and following further consideration of portability issues by HUD, this final rule makes certain changes to the regulations proposed in the March 28, 2012, rule. Changes made in response to public comment, issues raised by commenters, and HUD's responses to the comments are further addressed in Section III of this preamble.

The following highlights the more substantive changes made to the proposed rule at this final rule stage:

1. Definition of Absorption (§ 982.4(b)). To be consistent with HUD's portability regulations at § 982.355(d), which allows a PHA to absorb the family instead of billing the initial PHA, HUD revises the definition of absorption under the HCV program to mean the point at which a receiving PHA starts making assistance payments with funding under its consolidated Annual Contributions Contract (ACC), rather than billing, the initial PHA. The current definition implies that, in order to absorb a family, the receiving PHA has to first bill the initial PHA. The definition in this final rule also amends the recently revised definition in HUD's “Removal of Obsolete Section 8 Rental Assistance Certificate Program Regulations,” 1 which was effective on March 19, 2015, to be consistent with this final portability final rule.

1 See http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-02-17/pdf/2015-03037.pdf.

2. Mandatory voucher suspension (§ 982.4 and § 982.303(c)). HUD revises the notification requirement and definition pertaining to mandatory voucher suspension to provide clarity and avoid the possibility of disputes between families and PHAs.

3. Notification requirement before denying moves for insufficient funding (§ 982.354). HUD revises the written notification requirement to require an initial PHA to notify the local HUD office within 10 business days of a determination to deny a portability move based on insufficient funding.

4. Portability processing procedures (§ 982.355(g)). HUD revises § 982.355(g), which pertains to special purpose vouchers (SPVs), to clarify that PHAs must administer SPVs in accordance with HUD-established policy, including any alternative program requirements established by HUD for SPVs.

5. Term of receiving PHA voucher (§ 982.355(c)(13)). HUD revises § 982.355(c)(13) to provide that the voucher, issued by the receiving PHA to the family, may not expire before 30 calendar days have passed from the expiration date of the initial PHA's voucher. However, if the initial PHA's voucher has expired before the family arrives in the jurisdiction of the receiving PHA, the PHA must contact the initial PHA to determine if the initial PHA will extend the voucher. Unless the initial PHA is willing to extend its voucher under these circumstances, the receiving PHA may not issue the family a voucher.

6. Administrative fee (§ 982.355(e)(3)). HUD revises § 982.355(e)(3) to clarify that if the ongoing administrative fees for the program have been prorated due to insufficient administrative fee funding, the administrative fee that the receiving PHA may bill the initial PHA is also subject to the same proration.

7. Mandatory absorption of portability vouchers (§ 982.355(d)(2)). HUD removes the mandatory voucher absorption requirement and instead states that if HUD should choose to require mandatory absorption, HUD must publish a notice in the Federal Register and provide PHAs or affected PHAs (if not applicable to all PHAs) with the opportunity for public comment under § 982.355(d)(2)).

8. Family briefings (§ 982.301(a)(2), (a)(3), (b)(1), (b)(4), and (b)(9)). HUD revises § 982.301(a)(2), (a)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(9) to require briefings for all families with a HCV on the benefits of living in low-poverty census tracts.

9. Providing list of landlords to moving families (§ 982.301(b)(11)). HUD revises § 982.301(b)(11) to replace the current reference to “other parties known to the PHA” for “other resources (such as newspapers, organizations, and online search tools) known to the PHA” that may assist the family in locating a unit, and to provide that the list of landlords or other resources covers areas outside of poverty or minority concentration.

10. Allow a family to choose the receiving PHA (§ 982.355(b)). HUD revises § 982.355(b) to allow a family to choose the receiving PHA to administer its voucher, if there is more than one PHA for the jurisdiction where the family seeks to lease a unit.

11. Portability and Project-Based Vouchers (PBV) (§ 982.355). HUD did not adopt the change to § 982.355(g) in the proposed rule, which stated that the provisions on portability do not apply to the PBV program. HUD is concerned that the provision as proposed could be misinterpreted to preclude any potential touchpoints between the two regulations. To address such issues, HUD plans to issue separate guidance on this subject.

12. Other technical changes. In addition to the changes discussed above, HUD makes additional technical changes in this final rule. HUD revises § 982.355(d)(1), which addresses HCV absorption by the receiving PHA and the availability of funding under the consolidated ACC for the receiving PHA's HCV program. HUD revises this section to remove the reference to the effective date of the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contract as the date that the receiving PHA must know if it has funding to absorb the voucher. Since the receiving PHA may choose to subsequently end a billing arrangement and absorb the family after the effective date of the HAP contract, the reference was confusing. The change clarifies that if the receiving PHA wishes to absorb the family into the receiving PHA program, the receiving PHA must have funding available under its consolidated ACC to do so.

HUD makes technical revisions to §§ 982.301(b)(1), 982.554(c)(4), and 982.637(c)(1) to conform with the policy changes implemented elsewhere in this final rule. Finally, HUD revises §§ 982.403(c), 982.551(f), and 982.641(b)(11) to correct an incorrect citation.

IV. Discussion of Public Comments Received on March 28, 2012, Proposed Rule

The comment period for the proposed rule closed May 29, 2012. HUD received 52 comments on this proposed rule. The commenters included PHAs, organizations representing the public housing industry, tenant advocacy groups, State and local government agencies, and other interested members of the public.

The majority of comments were from PHAs and public housing representative organizations. The PHAs that commented varied in size and geography. In general, the comments from PHAs were mixed. There were several proposals that PHAs supported (e.g., allowing an extension beyond 30 days for porting vouchers, and actively providing a list of landlords) and others to which PHAs expressed opposition (e.g., restricting receiving PHAs from rescreening the porting family). Advocacy group commenters opposed the proposal regarding rescreening of porting families by the receiving PHA and expressed concern about the civil rights implications of such proposals. Specific issues raised by commenters and HUD's responses are as follows:

Comment: Concerns that the rule will increase regulatory burden and reduce local PHA discretion. Many commenters, while supportive of portability and HUD's goals to streamline and reduce administrative burdens, expressed concerns that the proposed regulatory changes did not sufficiently meet these goals. The commenters wrote that, rather than streamlining portability administration, the proposed rule would place additional requirements on PHAs (such as notifying the HUD field office before denying moves for insufficient funding, extending the term of the voucher for at least 30 days beyond the initial termination, requiring mandatory absorptions, and capping administrative fees). The commenters wrote that these policies would add to the burden and costs of administering vouchers, and suggested that HUD consider including the proposed new regulatory requirements in HUD's upcoming voucher administrative fee study to determine their real cost on PHAs and families. The commenters also stated that many of the new requirements would reduce local PHA discretion and flexibility.

HUD Reponses: HUD understands that some policies may increase burden for some PHAs. However, HUD disagrees that other policies in this rule, such as capping administrative fees, will increase administrative burden. HUD further believes that the added clarity to the portability process afforded by this final rule will improve the portability process and reduce the burden on families and PHAs. To address such concerns, each of these four issues is specifically addressed below. With respect to HUD's study on voucher administrative fees, the study is complete and, because of the time frame, took into consideration costs associated with portability, before this rulemaking.

Comment: Mandatory voucher suspension (§ 982.4 and § 982.303). Several commenters supported HUD's proposed change to the definition of “suspension.” The commenters wrote that the proposed language would increase the likelihood that families will successfully move during their voucher term. Other commenters, however, expressed concerns about the change, writing that the proposed revision would eliminate local discretion and increase administrative complexities and costs. The commenters wrote that the proposed change would require PHAs to monitor the term of the suspension and to notify families of that term and its subsequent expiration. The commenters also wrote that the mandatory suspension could result in two PHAs administering the same voucher, with the voucher remaining outstanding indefinitely and limiting the ability of the PHA to accurately report, budget, and forecast available voucher funding.

HUD Response: The proposed rule provided that the suspension term starts when the family submits a request for tenancy approval and ends when the PHA approves or denies such request. While HUD understands how voucher suspensions may impact a PHA's processes, HUD believes the benefit to the family outweighs the possible increase in administrative burden placed on the PHA. Based on the length of time an inspection takes to be completed, and the possibility that the voucher could expire if it were not suspended, families may be harmed by such delays due to no fault of their own. Furthermore, PHAs should be actively monitoring and managing their process for approving the assisted tenancy so the mandatory suspension rule should not significantly affect a PHAs ability to report, budget, and forecast available funding.

As noted earlier, HUD revised the proposed language on mandatory voucher suspensions to clarify that the suspension lasts until the family is notified in writing by the PHA whether the request for PHA-approval of the tenancy has been approved or denied. Specifying that the family must be notified before the voucher suspension ends provides clarity and avoids potential disputes between families and PHAs. See § § 982.4 and 982.303(c).

Comment: Notification requirement before denying moves for insufficient funding (§ 982.354). Several commenters expressed support for this provision, but suggested that HUD specify the time period in which a PHA must submit notice to HUD, as well as the date by which HUD will respond to the PHA's written notice. Other commenters expressed opposition to the requirement. They said that the receiving PHA is already required to notify the initial PHA whether the receiving PHA will bill the initial PHA for the family, or will absorb the voucher, and such requirement results in additional delays for the family.

HUD Response: Notification to the local HUD office when a PHA is denying moves due to insufficient funding is not a new requirement. Notice PIH 2012-42 (HA) 2 provides for this notification requirement, and the inclusion of this provision in the proposed rule was intended to codify it in regulation. HUD understands that requiring the PHA to notify the local HUD office adds to the administrative process. However, this requirement is important to HUD in carrying out its oversight and monitoring function. Through the notification requirement, HUD can better ensure that participants are not unnecessarily prohibited from moving under portability or within the PHA jurisdiction.

2 See http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=pih2012-42.pdf.

HUD agrees that more specificity is needed with respect to the time frames associated with this requirement. The final rule provides that a PHA must notify HUD in writing within 10 business days of the date on which the PHA determines it is necessary to deny moves based on insufficient funding. If HUD determines that the PHA lacks the grounds to deny moves due to insufficient funding, the PHA must immediately inform any affected family and immediately process the family's request to move.

Comment: Require HUD approval to deny incoming families and other portability processing procedures (§ 982.355). Several commenters expressed support for the requirement that a PHA must have written approval from HUD before refusing any incoming families. The commenters also suggested that HUD should clarify the procedures that PHAs must use when allowing portability of special purpose vouchers, referred to in this preamble as SPVs (e.g., Non-Elderly Disabled (NED), Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH), Family Unification Program (FUP), and 5-Year Mainstream). Commenters suggested that HUD specify limited circumstances in which a PHA may not be required to accept incoming families. Other commenters expressed concern that prohibiting the reversal of a decision to absorb vouchers will keep PHAs from deciding to absorb vouchers, thus increasing the amount of portability billing.

HUD Response: HUD appreciates these comments and has made some clarifying changes in the final rule with respect to SPVs, in § 982.355(g). The proposed rule included an example of a circumstance where a PHA may be allowed to deny an incoming family—a PHA in a declared disaster area. However, HUD cannot predict all limited circumstances that would warrant a denial of incoming families and instead prefers to handle such requests on a case-by-case basis.

In order to specify the procedures related to SPVs, the proposed rule set out requirements relating to portability moves of SPVs that were applicable to all SPVs; however, due to the intricacies of each SPV program, HUD determined that specific portability procedures for each SPV are better suited for guidance and not regulation.

Finally, some commenters claimed that HUD's policy to prohibit PHAs from reversing a decision to absorb a voucher may cause some PHAs to be more inclined to not absorb a voucher. HUD was unable to find evidence that the requirement will have such an effect, or that the impact on portability billings will be significant. Moreover, HUD determined that it is important to eliminate the potential negative effect such a reversal could have on the family.

Comment: Portability processing procedures and allowing email communications between initial and receiving PHA (§ 982.355). Several commenters expressed support for the requirement that PHAs communicate with other PHAs through email or other confirmed delivery methods. Commenters wrote that email is simpler than other methods, and its use has already been implemented by many PHAs. Some commenters wrote that some PHAs do not have email contacts for other PHAs, so it would be helpful for HUD to add an email field to the HUD-52665 form. Other commenters, however, had concerns about relying on email, and suggested that email supplement, rather than replace, other forms of communication.

HUD Response: While HUD supports email as the preferred method of communication, the final rule allows for the use of other methods of communication that have delivery confirmation. HUD also made a technical change to § 982.355(c)(4) to correct the reference to the “receiving” and not the “initial PHA.”

Comment: Voucher term of receiving PHA voucher (§ 982.355). Several commenters expressed support for the requirement that PHAs provide an additional 30 days on the voucher term to accommodate the time a family needs to attend a briefing session and locate a new unit. Some commenters, however, suggested that the extension be provided at the agency's discretion and not be mandatory. Another commenter encouraged HUD to add language to the regulation making it clear that receiving PHAs may choose to issue vouchers with more than the additional 30 days of search time. Other commenters objected to extending the voucher for 30 days. These commenters wrote that a blanket, national requirement that voucher terms last an additional 30 days would reduce the number of unit months leased nationally.

HUD Response: While requiring a receiving PHA to add an additional 30 calendar days to the term of the voucher may increase a PHA's administrative burden, providing an additional 30 calendar days to the receiving PHA's voucher term accommodates the additional time that the portability process requires, and does not count against the family's search time.

HUD agrees that the language in the proposed rule was too restrictive and has changed the language in the final rule to accommodate extensions of the term of the receiving PHA voucher beyond 30 calendar days if the receiving PHA chooses to allow such extensions. See § 982.355(c)(13).

Comment: Capping administrative fees (§ 982.355). Several commenters supported capping the amount paid to the receiving PHA for administrative fees at 100 percent of the receiving PHA's administrate fee rate. Other commenters were opposed to this proposal stating that it would be unfair for a receiving PHA to receive 100 percent of the fee since they are not doing 100 percent of the work.

Several commenters requested clarification of the administrative fee structure. The commenters wrote the proposed rule does not address the proration issue and that it is unclear if the cap is based on the receiving PHAs' published fee or prorated fee. These commenters stated that they were also unclear which PHA is responsible for determining fees.

Other commenters suggested alternatives or changes to the proposed administrative fee requirements. Commenters suggested that HUD consider prohibiting PHAs from prorating administrative fees for their outgoing portability vouchers and simply use the 80 percent of the published administrative fee. Other commenters suggested a flat administrative fee to be paid to the receiving PHA. Commenters also suggested that HUD consider reinstatement of the “hard to house” fee for SPVs.

HUD Response: Under the proposed rule, the initial PHA must reimburse the receiving PHA for the lesser of 80 percent of the initial PHA ongoing administrative fee or 100 percent of the receiving PHA's ongoing administrative fee for each program unit. Under this structure, the initial PHA always gets to keep a percentage of the administrative fee of the voucher, and the receiving PHA does not bill for an amount that is higher than the receiving PHA's administrative fee. Prior to this final rule provision, if the receiving PHA's prorated administrative fee was $45 and the initial PHA's prorated administrative fee was $60, for example, the receiving PHA would receive $48 (or 80 percent of $60) for the voucher, which is more than the $45 it would get for administering its own vouchers. In the same scenario under this final rule, the receiving PHA would bill for $45 for its share of the administrative fee and the initial PHA would keep $15 of the prorated monthly on-going admin fee for that unit under lease.

HUD also revises § 982.355(e)(3) to mirror, where appropriate, the language concerning ongoing administrative fees under current voucher regulations at § 982.152(b)(1). The paragraph is also revised to clarify that the receiving PHA is not precluded from billing an initial PHA for more than 100 percent of its own administrative fee if both PHAs agree to a different amount of reimbursement that is more than 100 percent of the receiving PHA's administrative fees. HUD agrees with commenters that, as stated in the proposed rule, HUD does not address whether the administrative fee is based on the initial PHA's published or prorated fee. Therefore, HUD is adding language to clarify that, if administrative fees are prorated for the HCV program, the proration will apply to the amount of the administrative fee for which the receiving PHA may bill under this section (i.e., the receiving PHA may bill for the lesser of 80 percent of the initial PHA's prorated ongoing administrative fee or 100 percent of the receiving PHA's prorated ongoing administrative fee).

Comment: Mandatory absorption of portability vouchers (§ 982.355(d)). Several commenters expressed support to require PHAs to absorb porting vouchers. However, several of the commenters requested clarification on the following areas: (1) The time period HUD will use to determine a PHA is below the 95 percent threshold; (2) how much notice a PHA will be provided before being required to absorb vouchers; (3) what data HUD will use to measure utilization of vouchers and budget authority; and (4) whether the receiving PHA will be prohibited from issuing vouchers to new families in their jurisdiction without having first absorbed all billed portability families.

Several other commenters expressed opposition to the proposal, stating that the proposed provision fails to take local circumstances into consideration. Some commenters expressed concern about possible negative consequences for small PHAs. They wrote that mandatory absorption may hurt small PHAs if they have a small allocation of vouchers or some vouchers are canceled or terminated. Therefore, a small PHA may instead prefer to draw from its waiting list, instead of absorbing porting vouchers. Other commenters wrote that imposing requirements on some PHAs to absorb portable vouchers without making absorption the standard solution is problematic. Finally, commenters also expressed concern that the burden would fall disproportionately on SPVs.

HUD Response: In this final rule, HUD removes the mandatory absorption requirement from the proposed rule. In considering the mandatory absorption requirement, HUD weighed various factors such as: (1) Monitoring leasing rates to assess when the requirement should be put in place and when it should be removed; (2) the impact on the utilization rate of initial PHAs (when a receiving PHA absorbs a port-in voucher for which it was previously billing, it frees-up budget authority and reduces the number of unit months leased for the initial PHA, and the initial PHA may not have sufficient time to utilize its increased budget authority or increase its reduced unit months leased); (3) determining the timing of such assessments; (4) the impact on the receiving PHA's waiting list as absorption would reduce the number of families on the waiting list that could be served; (5) the impact such a requirement could have on renewal funding; and (6) the impact requiring the use of Net Restricted Position (NRP) would have on PHAs.

After consideration of such factors, HUD decided not to adopt the mandatory absorption requirement as proposed. This final rule continues to afford HUD the ability to mandate absorptions on a case-by-case basis. Should HUD determine to impose such a requirement in the future for all PHAs that: (1) Are utilizing less than 95 percent of their available budget authority, and (2) have a leasing rate of less than 95 percent, it shall do so through a notice in the Federal Register stating such proposed policy and procedures, with an opportunity for public comment for a period of no less than 60 calendar days. After consideration of public comments, HUD will publish a final notice in the Federal Register advising PHAs and the public of HUD's final determination on mandatory absorption.

V. Comments on Specific Issues Raised by HUD

Comment: Transfer of ACC funds between initial and receiving PHA. HUD invited comments on how to redesign portability in a way that would eliminate or minimize the administrative burdens associated with portability billings. In the past, some PHAs suggested that HUD transfer funds from the initial PHA's consolidated ACC to the receiving PHA's consolidated ACC, in order to transfer the money without direct PHA involvement. Others suggested a sharing of costs by the initial and receiving PHA, whereby the initial PHA would pay to the receiving PHA no more than the family's subsidy at the initial PHA location.

Of those commenters that responded to the request in the proposed rule, a few supported a transfer of funds between the initial and receiving PHAs for portability vouchers, while others were against it. Some commenters wrote that tracking transfers of this type would be an added administrative burden on HUD and PHAs. Commenters noted that PHAs with a high percentage of outgoing portability vouchers would be disproportionately affected by such transfers. A high volume of voucher transfers may jeopardize these PHAs' operations, and make the PHAs' budgets more unstable and less predictable. Commenters favoring the transfers of ACC funds for portability wrote that such transfers would result in numerous efficiencies by eliminating billing arrangements among PHAs.

As for sharing the costs between PHAs, a commenter wrote that it is unfair for the initial PHA to pay no more than the family's subsidy to the receiving PHA because it does not recognize the real cost for the receiving PHA for administering the voucher, but the commenter suggested that an administrative fee should still be paid.

HUD Response: HUD agrees with the commenters that expressed concerns that transfers of ACC funds under portability may have potential negative effect on PHAs, especially those with a high percentage of outgoing portability vouchers. Also the administrative burden of such transfers on HUD and PHAs outweighs eliminating or minimizing portability billings. With respect to limiting the amount the initial PHA pays for HAP under the billing option to no more than it would pay for that voucher if leasing in their jurisdiction, and having the receiving PHA share the cost, HUD concluded that such sharing of the costs would be administratively burdensome on PHAs, disproportionately affect PHAs with a high percentage of incoming portability vouchers, needlessly complicate the portability process, and would not reduce portability billings. Therefore, HUD did not incorporate this change into this final rule.

Comment: Rescreening of families using portability. HUD solicited comments on how to minimize hardship on families when the receiving PHA's screening criteria is more stringent than the initial PHA's criteria. Several commenters supported a proposed restriction on rescreening of porting families. These commenters wrote that rescreening presents a significant barrier for voucher families trying to relocate to areas that offer greater opportunity. The commenters wrote that, for true mobility, rescreening must not be allowed.

Other commenters, all PHAs, supported rescreening by the receiving PHA. A commenter wrote that PHAs cannot be expected to operate using multiple screening standards. A commenter also wrote that it is unfair to families that are ineligible under the receiving PHA's criteria, while those from another jurisdiction are allowed to participate in the HCV program.

HUD Response: HUD agrees that receiving PHAs should be allowed to apply their own screening standards consistently among families in their program and for families moving into their jurisdiction under portability. However, it is important that moving families be informed that they are subject to screening based on the receiving PHA's criteria, and that the receiving PHA's screening criteria may be different than that of the initial PHA. Any potential hardship on the family may be minimized, to some extent, if families are aware ahead of time if the receiving PHA will be rescreening incoming families. This information should be incorporated into the briefing packet as discussed below.

Comment: Requirement and content of HCV family briefings. HUD solicited comments on whether the briefing should be revised to highlight the factors and trade-offs a family should consider when leasing a unit with voucher assistance. These factors include, but are not limited to: employment opportunities; safety, health and environmental amenities; public transportation; the quality of schools; access to social services; the quality of housing; and proximity to family and friends. Comments were also solicited on whether information on the benefits of living in low-poverty census tracts should be provided to all families selected to participate in the HCV program, and not just those families living in high-poverty census tracts, as is provided in the codified regulation. The majority of commenters expressed opposition to expanding the briefing requirements, stating that the existing briefing requirements are already complex and any expansion would increase administrative burden. Several commenters wrote that the requirements of the family briefings are already covered under the Section 8 Management Assessment Program indicator on expanding housing opportunities and deconcentration.

HUD Response: HUD has determined that providing information about the factors the family should consider when determining where to lease a unit with voucher assistance will only be required as part of the briefing should HUD make such information available to PHAs for distribution. If required, PHAs are to provide such information as part of the oral briefing and the information packet provided to families selected to participate in the program. HUD therefore revises the regulation at § 982.301 accordingly.

HUD has also determined that an explanation of the benefits of living in low-poverty census tracts should be provided to all families, not just those families living in high-poverty census tracts. This explanation of benefits should also be included in the information packet provided to families selected to participate in the HCV program.

In making this determination HUD considered the effect on both families and PHAs. While families who already live in low-poverty census tracts may be aware of the benefits of living in such areas, not all families may have such awareness, and HUD does not see any disadvantages in providing all families such information. While there may be some administrative cost to PHAs in providing such information to all families selected to participate in the program, this change will also provide some administrative relief for PHAs. With the change, PHAs will not have to determine which families live in high-poverty census tracts to determine who needs the additional briefing. In this regard, a commenter wrote that most PHAs already provide the same information regardless of where the family lives.

HUD determined that information on how portability works should be provided during the briefing and as part of the information packet to every family, not just those who are eligible to move under portability. Accordingly, HUD revised the regulation at § 982.301(a)(2) and § 982.301(b)(4). HUD is also revising some of the required content of the family briefings related to portability in this final rule. In addition to an explanation of how portability works, the briefing should also include information on how portability may affect the family's assistance through rescreening, changes in subsidy standards and payment standards, and any other elements of the portability process that may affect the family's assistance.

Comment: Providing list of landlords. HUD solicited comments on whether to continue requiring PHAs to provide families with a list of landlords or other parties known to the PHA who may be willing to lease a unit to the family, and whether additional information on areas of opportunity or neighborhoods would be beneficial for families. The majority of commenters responding to this solicitation of comments were PHAs that supported the provision of a list of landlords. These commenters stated that such lists may be extremely helpful to voucher participants who are seeking housing and may not be aware of local housing opportunities. Some commenters suggested that providing the list to voucher participants should be voluntary. A minority of commenters expressed concern that such lists may result in steering families to high-poverty and racially concentrated areas, and that PHAs should be required to assess such lists to ensure they do not steer such families.

HUD Response: HUD agrees that such written references could be essential to a successful housing search, particularly to families who are moving under portability and may not be familiar with the new jurisdiction. HUD also agrees that PHAs that choose to maintain such lists should be mindful of the need to provide housing opportunities to families in nonracially and nonpoverty concentrated areas. At this final rule stage, HUD retains the requirement to provide a list of landlords known to the PHA that may be willing to lease a unit to the family. Accordingly, HUD modifies § 982.301(b)(11), to replace the current reference to “other parties known to the PHA” for “other resources (such as newspapers, organizations, and online search tools) known to the PHA” that may assist the family in locating a unit, and to provide that the list of landlords or other resources covers areas outside of poverty or minority concentration.

Comment: Allow a family to select the receiving PHA. HUD solicited comments on whether a family should have the option to select the receiving PHA when more than one PHA has jurisdiction over the area to which the family wishes to move. Under the codified HCV program regulations, the initial PHA selects the receiving PHA for the porting family. The majority of commenters responding to this solicitation supported HUD's proposal to allow families to select the receiving PHA. Other commenters wrote that it would be burdensome for participants to have to review sometimes dozens of PHAs' information. These commenters suggested that HUD should maintain a national register of HCV program contacts for voucher participants, if the policy were to be implemented.

HUD Response: HUD determined that families should be given the option to select the receiving PHA when there is more than one PHA that has jurisdiction over the area where the family wishes to lease a unit. As stated in the proposed rule, giving such choice to families allows families to select receiving PHAs that best meet their needs. While HUD understands that in certain cases it may be burdensome for the family to select a receiving PHA, this change does not preclude a family from seeking assistance from the initial PHA in selecting the receiving PHA if the family so chooses. The final rule, therefore, provides that it will be the responsibility of the initial PHA to inform the family of the PHAs that serve the area and provide the family with the contact information for those PHAs. The initial PHA is not required to provide information of the options or services that each PHA may offer.

Accordingly, HUD is revising § 982.355(b) to clarify that the family has the option to select the receiving PHA.

VI. Other Public Comments

Comment: Limit liability for families to move with portability. Several commenters suggested that HUD adopt qualifying criteria (such as families moving for educational or employment opportunities, or families in flight of domestic violence) for moves under portability to ensure that families have a good reason to move. Other commenters suggested limiting the number of times a family may move to one move per year. Another commenter suggested that HUD limit the percentage of portability moves a receiving PHA must handle at a time.

HUD Response: There are provisions already in place that allow PHAs to manage family moves. For example, current regulation at § 982.314(c) provides that the PHA may establish policies that prohibit any move during the initial lease term, and prohibits more than one move by the family during any 1-year period, either within the PHA's jurisdiction or through portability. Moreover, receiving PHAs may always choose to absorb into its voucher program a participant who has moved under portability, provided that the receiving PHA has funding available to do so.

Comment: PHAs should be required to remind families they may move with portability. Some commenters suggested that PHAs should be required to actively remind families that they may move using the HCV portability process. Specifically, the commenters suggested that PHAs should be required to remind families at their annual recertification that they may move to other jurisdictions with continued voucher assistance.

HUD Response: HUD's regulation at § 982.301(a) and (b) provides for a family briefing and for an information packet to be given to the family when the family first participates in the voucher program. As provided in this final rule, every family must receive a briefing, and during such briefing, must be given information on how portability works. HUD finds this initial briefing to be sufficient and declines to require PHAs to remind families about portability at other times.

Comment: Provide additional support for victims of domestic violence. Commenters wrote that victims of domestic violence need additional support, beyond briefings. The commenters were supportive of the effectiveness of transitional housing and briefing residents on such services.

HUD Response: PHAs are required to offer victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking the protections afforded under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as reflected in HUD's regulations (24 CFR part 5, subpart L). These requirements include providing the victim with a notification of his or her rights under VAWA (24 CFR 5.2005). PHAs have the option and are encouraged to provide the victim with contact information for supportive services for victims of abuse. At a minimum, PHAs are encouraged to provide the number for the National Domestic Violence Hotline (1-800-799-SAFE (7233)) or the National Sexual Assault Hotline (1-800-656-HOPE (4673)) to victims. Victims who call these numbers may be able to locate supportive services in their area.

Comment: Exempt small PHAs from portability requirements. Several commenters wrote that portability should not apply to participants in small PHAs' programs. The commenters pointed out that a small PHA often has to pay a significantly higher cost for vouchers that port to higher-cost areas than the small PHA would pay for vouchers in their own jurisdiction. This higher cost limits the small PHA's ability to lease its own vouchers and serve families in its jurisdiction.

HUD Response: Since portability is authorized by statute, small PHAs cannot be exempted from allowing eligible families to move. Furthermore, HUD believes that portability is a key feature of the HCV program and families should not be denied the opportunity to move to other jurisdictions based on the size of the administering PHA. With regard to the cost impact, moves to higher-cost areas can impact the PHAs' ability to serve families from its waiting list. However, it is noted that these higher costs are taken into consideration in determining the PHA's renewal eligibility under the HCV program. Furthermore, the appropriations act typically provides that the higher costs of portability are an eligible category for set-aside funding that is used to adjust a PHA's renewal funding. Finally, as discussed in the preamble of this final rule, HUD has strived to clarify the portability process and thus reduce burden for PHAs.

Comment: Concerns about billing for portability vouchers. Several commenters wrote that the rule encourages billing the initial PHA, but should instead encourage absorption of vouchers by the receiving PHA. The commenters wrote that if a receiving PHA can receive 100 percent of its fee for a billed incoming voucher and only 80 percent of its fee for its own voucher, a PHA would have a strong incentive to bill rather than absorb the voucher. Several commenters also wrote that delays in payment by the initial PHA to a receiving PHA are a burden. They suggested that HUD should impose a firm deadline by which the initial PHA must pay its bills or establish other sanctions or tools for a PHA to use for chronic late-payers. Commenters also suggested that HUD develop a program to be used by all PHAs in tracking portability payments.

HUD Response: Prior to this final rule, a receiving PHA would be paid 80 percent of the initial PHA's administrative fees. The March 28, 2012, rule proposed and this final rule revises the administrative fee amount that can be billed to the initial PHA to the lesser of the amount currently provided in the codified regulation (80 percent of the initial PHA's ongoing administrative fee or 100 percent of the receiving PHA's administrative fee). Under this rule, a receiving PHA cannot bill for more than the administrative fee it would otherwise receive for its own program, regardless of whether the initial PHA's administrative fee is higher than the receiving PHA's administrative fee. Prorations applicable to an initial PHA's administrative fees due to an appropriations act that does not fully fund administrative-fee eligibility will apply to those amounts. Therefore, the receiving PHA cannot bill and receive more in administrative fees for a portability voucher than it would receive for its own vouchers, unless both PHAs have agreed on a different amount of reimbursement.

As noted earlier in this preamble, HUD already imposes a firm deadline on portability billings and provides mechanisms that the receiving PHA may use in cases where the initial PHA fails to comply with the initial and subsequent billing due dates. (See Section 8 of Notice PIH 2012-42, Housing Choice Voucher Family Moves with Continued Assistance.)

Comment: HUD should present data to define portability success for voucher-assisted households. Commenters suggested that the use of data to define portability success would be beneficial for stakeholders to more fully comment on the proposed rule. A commenter suggested that American Community Survey data could be used, in conjunction with HUD data, to provide an overlay of assisted and unassisted households to determine at each income quintile, how many households move and how often they move within their existing city and county, outside of their county, or outside of their State. The commenter further wrote that such an analysis may help show that a high percentage of mobility moves results in voucher-assisted households relocating to neighborhoods of opportunity or deconcentrated neighborhoods.

HUD Response: HUD believes that portability success can be defined in a multitude of ways and is unclear how the analysis described by the commenter would successfully indicate the effects of portability on families. While HUD appreciates the suggestion for additional research into portability success, the intent of this final rule is to simplify the administration of portability issues within the voucher program. HUD believes this analysis is not necessary for successful implementation of the proposed reforms.

VII. Findings and Certifications Regulatory Review—Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. This rule was determined to be a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (although not an economically significant regulatory action, as provided under section 3(f)(1) of the Executive order).

This final rule amends HUD's regulations governing portability in the HCV program. These regulatory changes streamline the portability process and enable initial and receiving PHAs to better serve families and expand housing opportunities. HUD's analysis determined that these regulatory amendments will not have an economic effect of greater than $100 million but would yield certain nontangible benefits. The findings of HUD's analysis are summarized below, and addressed in more detail in the accompanying regulatory analysis:

1. Benefits of final rule. The HCV portability policy helps ensure that families have the opportunity to relocate in order to pursue increased or new employment opportunities or to gain access to preferred schools for their children. An efficient portability process also helps ensure that victims of domestic violence and stalking have access to the resources necessary to relocate to a safe, stable home away from an abuser.

Moves to areas with relatively low concentrations of neighborhood poverty have important benefits to housing choice voucher families. Research from HUD's Moving to Opportunity (MTO) demonstration 3 showed that moving from housing developments in high-poverty neighborhoods to private housing in lower-poverty neighborhoods had strong positive effects on girls' and adults' mental health, as well as on adults' physical health. Under the Gautreaux desegregation program in Chicago,4 children and adults who moved with HCV assistance to middle-income suburbs appear to have experienced educational gains compared to families that remained in urban or higher-poverty neighborhoods. It is expected that the rule will remove potential barriers to mobility and will increase the number of families that may move to areas of opportunities. Some research indicates that families often use their vouchers to move to better opportunities, including employment opportunities.

3 See: http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/MTOFHD_fullreport_v2.pdf.

4 The Gatreaux desegregation program is a housing desegregation program initiated by court order. In a consent decree, the court ordered the Chicago Housing Authority to provide scattered-site housing for public housing residents residing in poverty concentrated areas.

2. Costs of rule. HUD expects that portability billing arrangements in this rule will place only a slightly additional administrative burden on PHAs. Portability may add to the cost of the HCV program through higher HAP costs, but the fiscal year (FY) 2015 appropriations act provides a set-aside of up to $120 million from HCV renewal funds to allow HUD to provide PHAs with additional renewal funding under certain circumstances. One of the eligible categories permitted under the appropriations act is for increased costs resulting from unforeseen circumstances and portability. HUD is in the process of receiving the FY 2015 set-aside applications; however, an average of $23 million has been found eligible in the past for PHAs for portability adjustments.

4. Administrative Fee. Prior to this rule, for a voucher in a portability billing arrangement between the initial PHA and receiving PHA, the initial PHA had to pay the receiving PHA 80 percent of its administrative fee for each month that the family received assistance at the receiving PHA, unless the PHAs mutually agreed to a different billing amount. Removal of potential barriers to mobility is expected to increase the number of portability vouchers and, thus, increase the amount of administrative fee transfers between PHAs.

The final rule would set the maximum amount that the initial PHA is required to pay at 100 percent of the receiving PHA's administrative fee rate. In other words, the initial PHA would reimburse the receiving PHA for the lesser of: (1) 80 percent of the initial PHA's ongoing fee or (2) the full amount of the receiving PHA's administrative fee. This change eliminates the incentive for a receiving PHA with a lower administrative fee to bill an initial PHA with a higher administrative fee in order to receive a higher administrative fee than it would normally earn from HUD. This action should reduce portability billings for those PHAs for whom 80 percent of the initial PHA's fee is more than 100 percent of their own administrative fee. For example, assume that a receiving PHA's administrative fee is $60. Prior to this rule, if a family moves to the receiving PHA's jurisdiction from an initial PHA that receives $100 in administrative fees for a housing voucher, the receiving PHA may bill the initial PHA for $80, which is $20 more than the PHA would earn if it simply absorbed the voucher. Under the final rule, the receiving PHA will receive $60 regardless of whether the receiving PHA bills the initial PHA or absorbs the family into its own program.

The full economic analysis is available for review at www.regulations.gov. The docket file for this rule is available for public inspection in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the docket file by calling the Regulations Division at 202-402-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

Information Collection Requirements

The information collection requirements in the proposed rule were submitted to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. The information collection requirements of this rule was assigned this OMB Control Number 2577-0169.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule is solely concerned with the portability feature of the voucher program. There currently are approximately 739 small PHAs (i.e., PHAs with less than 250 public housing units or vouchers) 5 that will be subject to the rule. Since portability is authorized by statute, small PHAs administering the HCV program cannot be exempt from allowing eligible families to move, and HUD has strived to reduce burden for all PHAs. Therefore, while this final rule will impact these PHAs, the impact will not be significant. As stated previously in this preamble, through the amendments to the HCV regulations provided in this rule, HUD will reduce the administrative burden of portability for both PHAs and families, reduce portability billing arrangements between PHAs, and ensure maximum family choice in locating suitable housing. HUD also removed the proposed requirement for mandatory absorption of portability vouchers by the receiving PHA that was in the proposed rule. Through this final rule, HUD strives to clarify the portability process and reduce administrative burden for all PHAs, large or small. As explained more fully above in the “Executive Order 12866 and 13563” section of this preamble, the benefits of the regulatory changes will largely outweigh the administrative and compliance costs to PHAs. Accordingly, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

5 The number of 739 PHAs includes HCV-only PHAs and PHAs with combined HCV-public housing portfolios. This number does not include public housing-only PHAs, which is the largest category of small PHAs but which are not affected by this rule.

Environmental Impact

This rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 982

Grant programs-housing and community development, Grant programs-Indians, Indians, Public housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, HUD amends 24 CFR part 982, as follows:

PART 982—SECTION 8 TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE: HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for 24 CFR part 982 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 1437f and 3535(d).

2. In § 982.4, in paragraph (b), revise the definitions of “Absorption” and “Suspension” to read as follows:
§ 982.4 Definitions.

(b) * * *

Absorption. For purposes of subpart H, the point at which a receiving PHA starts making assistance payments with funding under its consolidated ACC, rather than billing, the initial PHA.

Suspension. The term on the family's voucher stops from the date that the family submits a request for PHA approval of the tenancy, until the date the PHA notifies the family in writing whether the request has been approved or denied.

3. In § 982.54, revise paragraphs (d)(2) and (19) to read as follows:
§ 982.54 Administrative plan.

(d) * * *

(2) Issuing or denying vouchers, including PHA policy governing the voucher term and any extensions of the voucher term. If the PHA decides to allow extensions of the voucher term, the PHA administrative plan must describe how the PHA determines whether to grant extensions, and how the PHA determines the length of any extension.

(19) Restrictions, if any, on the number of moves by a participant family (see § 982.354(c));

4. In § 982.301, revise paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), (b)(1), (b)(4), (b)(9), and (b)(11) to read as follows:
§ 982.301 Information when family is selected.

(a) * * *

(2) An explanation of how portability works. The PHA may not discourage the family from choosing to live anywhere in the PHA jurisdiction, or outside the PHA jurisdiction under portability procedures, unless otherwise expressly authorized by statute, regulation, PIH Notice, or court order. The family must be informed of how portability may affect the family's assistance through screening, subsidy standards, payment standards, and any other elements of the portability process which may affect the family's assistance.

(3) The briefing must also explain the advantages of areas that do not have a high concentration of low-income families.

(b) * * *

(1) The term of the voucher, voucher suspensions, and PHA policy on any extensions of the term. If the PHA allows extensions, the packet must explain how the family can request an extension;

(4) Where the family may lease a unit and an explanation of how portability works, including information on how portability may affect the family's assistance through screening, subsidy standards, payment standards, and any other elements of the portability process which may affect the family's assistance.

(9) Materials (e.g., brochures) on how to select a unit and any additional information on selecting a unit that HUD provides.

(11) A list of landlords known to the PHA who may be willing to lease a unit to the family or other resources (e.g., newspapers, organizations, online search tools) known to the PHA that may assist the family in locating a unit. PHAs must ensure that the list of landlords or other resources covers areas outside of poverty or minority concentration.

5. In § 982.303, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 982.303 Term of voucher.

(c) Suspension of term. The PHA must provide for suspension of the initial or any extended term of the voucher from the date that the family submits a request for PHA approval of the tenancy until the date the PHA notifies the family in writing whether the request has been approved or denied.

§ 982.314 [Redesignated as § 982.354]
6. Redesignate § 982.314 as § 982.354. 7. Section 982.353 is amended as follows: a. Remove the word “or” from paragraph (c)(1) and in its place add the word “nor”; b. Revise paragraphs (c)(3) and (d)(2); c. Remove paragraph (d)(3); and d. Remove paragraph (e), redesignate paragraph (f) as paragraph (e), and revise newly redesignated paragraph (e).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 982.353 Where family can lease a unit with tenant-based assistance.

(c) * * *

(3) If the initial PHA approves, the family may lease a unit outside the PHA jurisdiction under portability procedures.

(d) * * *

(2) If a family is a participant in the initial PHA's voucher program, income eligibility is not redetermined when the family moves to the receiving PHA program under portability procedures.

(e) Freedom of choice. The PHA may not directly or indirectly reduce the family's opportunity to select among available units, except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, or elsewhere in this part 982 (e.g., prohibition on the use of ineligible housing, housing not meeting HQS, or housing for which the rent to owner exceeds a reasonable rent). However, the PHA must provide families the information required in § 982.301 for both the oral briefing and the information packet to ensure that they have the information they need to make an informed decision on their housing choice.

8. Amend newly designated § 982.354 as follows: a. Revise paragraphs (c)(1) and (2); b. Remove paragraphs (c)(3) and (d)(1); c. Redesignate paragraph (d)(2) as paragraph (d); and d. Revise paragraph (e)(1).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 982.354 Move with continued tenant-based assistance.

(c) How many moves. (1) A participant family may move with continued assistance under the program, either inside the PHA jurisdiction, or under the portability procedures (See § 982.353) in accordance with the PHA's policies.

(2) Consistent with applicable civil rights laws and regulations, the PHA may establish policies that:

(i) Prohibit any move by the family during the initial lease term; and

(ii) Prohibit more than one move by the family during any one-year period.

(e) When the PHA may deny permission to move. (1) The PHA may deny permission to move if the PHA does not have sufficient funding for continued assistance. The PHA must provide written notification to the local HUD Office within 10 business days of determining it is necessary to deny moves to a higher-cost unit based on insufficient funding.

9. Revise § 982.355 to read as follows:
§ 982.355 Portability: Administration by initial and receiving PHA.

(a) General. When a family moves under portability (in accordance with § 982.353(b)) to an area outside the initial PHA jurisdiction, the receiving PHA must administer assistance for the family if a PHA with a HCV program has jurisdiction in the area where the unit is located.

(b) Requirement to administer assistance. A receiving PHA cannot refuse to assist incoming portable families or direct them to another neighboring PHA for assistance. If there is more than one such PHA, the initial PHA provides the family with the contact information for the receiving PHAs that serve the area, and the family selects the receiving PHA. The family must inform the initial PHA which PHA it has selected as the receiving PHA. In cases where the family prefers not to select the receiving PHA, the initial PHA selects the receiving PHA on behalf of the family. HUD may determine in certain instances that a PHA is not required to accept incoming portable families, such as a PHA in a declared disaster area. However, the PHA must have approval in writing from HUD before refusing any incoming portable families.

(c) Portability procedures. The following portability procedures must be followed:

(1) When the family decides to use the voucher outside of the PHA jurisdiction, the family must notify the initial PHA of its desire to relocate and must specify the location where it wants to live.

(2) The initial PHA must determine the family's eligibility to move in accordance with §§ 982.353 and 982.354.

(3) Once the receiving PHA is determined in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, the initial PHA must contact the receiving PHA, via email or other confirmed delivery method, prior to approving the family's request to move in order to determine whether the voucher will be absorbed or billed by the receiving PHA. The receiving PHA must advise the initial PHA in writing, via email or other confirmed delivery method, of its decision.

(4) If the receiving PHA notifies the initial PHA that it will absorb the voucher, the receiving PHA cannot reverse its decision at a later date without consent of the initial PHA.

(5) If the receiving PHA will bill the initial PHA for the portability voucher and the cost of the HAP will increase due to the move, the initial PHA may deny the move if it does not have sufficient funding for continued assistance in accordance with § 982.354 (e)(1).

(6) If a billing arrangement is approved by the initial PHA or if the voucher is to be absorbed by the receiving PHA, the initial PHA must issue the family a voucher to move, if it has not already done so, and advise the family how to contact and request assistance from the receiving PHA.

(7) The initial PHA must promptly notify the receiving PHA to expect the family. The initial PHA must give the receiving PHA the form HUD-52665, the most recent form HUD 50058 (Family Report) for the family, and all related verification information.

(8) The family must promptly contact the receiving PHA in order to be informed of the receiving PHA's procedures for incoming portable families and comply with these procedures. The family's failure to comply may result in denial or termination of the receiving PHA's voucher.

(9) The receiving PHA does not redetermine eligibility for a participant family. However, for a family that was not already receiving assistance in the PHA's HCV program, the initial PHA must determine whether the family is eligible for admission to the receiving PHA's HCV program. In determining income eligibility, the receiving PHA's income limits are used by the initial PHA.

(10) When a receiving PHA assists a family under portability, administration of the voucher must be in accordance with the receiving PHA's policies. This requirement also applies to policies of Moving to Work agencies. The receiving PHA procedures and preferences for selection among eligible applicants do not apply to the family, and the receiving PHA waiting list is not used.

(11) If the receiving PHA opts to conduct a new reexamination for a current participant family, the receiving PHA may not delay issuing the family a voucher or otherwise delay approval of a unit.

(12) The receiving PHA must determine the family unit size for the family, and base its determination on the subsidy standards of the receiving PHA.

(13) The receiving PHA must issue a voucher to the family. The term of the receiving PHA voucher may not expire before 30 calendar days from the expiration date of the initial PHA voucher. If the voucher expires before the family arrives at the receiving PHA, the receiving PHA must contact the initial PHA to determine if it will extend the voucher.

(14) Once the receiving PHA issues the portable family a voucher, the receiving PHA's policies on extensions of the voucher term apply. The receiving PHA must notify the initial PHA of any extensions granted to the term of the voucher.

(15) The family must submit a request for tenancy approval to the receiving PHA during the term of the receiving PHA voucher. As required in § 982.303, if the family submits a request for tenancy approval during the term of the voucher, the PHA must suspend the term of that voucher.

(16) The receiving PHA must promptly notify the initial PHA if the family has leased an eligible unit under the program, or if the family fails to submit a request for tenancy approval for an eligible unit within the term of the voucher.

(17) At any time, either the initial PHA or the receiving PHA may make a determination to deny or terminate assistance to the family in accordance with § 982.552 and 982.553.

(d) Absorption by the receiving PHA. (1) If funding is available under the consolidated ACC for the receiving PHA's HCV program, the receiving PHA may absorb the family into the receiving PHA's HCV program. After absorption, the family is assisted with funds available under the consolidated ACC for the receiving PHA's HCV program.

(2) HUD may require that the receiving PHA absorb all, or a portion of, incoming portable families. Under circumstances described in a notice published in the Federal Register, HUD may determine that receiving PHAs, or categories of receiving PHAs, should absorb all or a portion of incoming portable families. If HUD makes such a determination, HUD will provide an opportunity for public comment, for a period of no less than 60 calendar days, on such policy and procedures. After consideration of public comments, HUD will publish a final notice in the Federal Register advising PHAs and the public of HUD's final determination on the subject of mandatory absorption of incoming portable families.

(3) HUD may provide financial or nonfinancial incentives (or both) to PHAs that absorb portability vouchers.

(e) Portability billing. (1) To cover assistance for a portable family that was not absorbed in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section, the receiving PHA may bill the initial PHA for housing assistance payments and administrative fees.

(2) The initial PHA must promptly reimburse the receiving PHA for the full amount of the housing assistance payments made by the receiving PHA for the portable family. The amount of the housing assistance payment for a portable family in the receiving PHA program is determined in the same manner as for other families in the receiving PHA program.

(3) The initial PHA must promptly reimburse the receiving PHA for the lesser of 80 percent of the initial PHA ongoing administrative fee or 100 percent of the receiving PHA's ongoing administrative fee for each program unit under HAP contract on the first day of the month for which the receiving PHA is billing the initial PHA under this section. If administrative fees are prorated for the HCV program, the proration will apply to the amount of the administrative fee for which the receiving PHA may bill under this section (e.g., the receiving PHA may bill for the lesser of 80 percent of the initial PHA's prorated ongoing administrative fee or 100 percent of the receiving PHA's prorated ongoing administrative fee). If both PHAs agree, the PHAs may negotiate a different amount of reimbursement.

(4) When a portable family moves out of the HCV program of a receiving PHA that has not absorbed the family, the PHA in the new jurisdiction to which the family moves becomes the receiving PHA, and the first receiving PHA is no longer required to provide assistance for the family.

(5) In administration of portability, the initial PHA and the receiving PHA must comply with financial procedures required by HUD, including the use of HUD-required billing forms. The initial and receiving PHA must also comply with billing and payment deadlines under the financial procedures.

(6) A PHA must manage the PHA HCV program in a manner that ensures that the PHA has the financial ability to provide assistance for families that move out of the PHA's program under the portability procedures, and that have not been absorbed by the receiving PHA, as well as for families that remain in the PHA's program.

(7) HUD may reduce the administrative fee to an initial or receiving PHA if the PHA does not comply with HUD portability requirements.

(f) Portability funding. (1) HUD may transfer units and funds for assistance to portable families to the receiving PHA from funds available under the initial PHA ACC.

(2) HUD may provide additional funding (e.g., funds for incremental units) to the initial PHA for funds transferred to a receiving PHA for portability purposes.

(3) HUD may provide additional funding (e.g., funds for incremental units) to the receiving PHA for absorption of portable families.

(4) HUD may require the receiving PHA to absorb portable families.

(g) Special purpose vouchers. (1) The initial PHA must submit the codes used for special purpose vouchers on the form HUD-50058, Family Report, and the receiving PHA must maintain the codes on the Family Report, as long as the Receiving PHA chooses to bill the initial PHA.

(2) Initial and receiving PHAs must administer special purpose vouchers, such as the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing vouchers, in accordance with HUD-established policy in cases where HUD has established alternative program requirements of such special purpose vouchers.

§ 982.403 [Amended]
10. In § 982.403, paragraph (b)(3) is amended by removing the citation “§ 982.314” and in its place adding the citation “§ 982.354.”
§ 982.551 [Amended]
11. In § 982.551, paragraph (f) is amended by removing the citation “§ 982.314” and in its place adding the citation “§ 982.354.”
12. In § 982.554, revise paragraph (c)(4) to read as follows:
§ 982.554 Informal review for applicant.

(c) * * *

(4) A PHA determination not to approve an extension of the voucher term.

13. In § 982.555, revise paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
§ 982.555 Informal hearing for participant.

(b) * * *

(4) A PHA determination not to approve an extension of the voucher term.

14. In § 982.637, revise paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
§ 982.637 Homeownership option: Move with continued tenant-based assistance.

(c) * * *

(1) Lack of funding to provide continued assistance. The PHA may deny permission to move with continued rental or homeownership assistance if the PHA determines that it does not have sufficient funding to provide continued assistance. The PHA must provide written notification to the local HUD Office within 10 business days of determining it is necessary to deny moves based on insufficient funding.

§ 982.641 [Amended]
15. Section 982.641(b)(11) is amended by removing the citation “§ 982.314” and in its place adding the citation “§ 982.354.” Dated: August 13, 2015. Jemine A. Bryon, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. Approved on August 13, 2015. Nani A. Coloretti, Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-20551 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0705] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations; Marine Events Held in the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone; Correction AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

On August 13, 2015, the Coast Guard published in the Federal Register (80 FR 48436) a temporary final rule establishing five special local regulations for marine events held in the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone. Four of the marine events have already taken place. Inadvertently, this rule included an error in the date of the fifth special local regulation established in support of the “War Writers Campaign Kayak For Cause” event. This document corrects that error.

DATES:

This rule is effective from August 20, 2015 through August 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of Docket Number USCG-2015-0705. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Open Docket Folder” on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, contact Petty Officer Ian Fallon, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, telephone (203) 468-4565, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On August 13, 2015, the Coast Guard published in the Federal Register a temporary final rule establishing five special local regulations for marine events held in the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone (80 FR 48436). Four of the marine events have already taken place. Inadvertently, the rule included an error in the date of the fifth special local regulation established in support of the “War Writers Campaign Kayak For Cause” event.

As stated in the Federal Register publication of the temporary final rule, the special local regulation for the “War Writers Campaign Kayak For Cause” event would be enforced on August 28, 2015. Due to a clerical error, the enforcement date was incorrect. The correct date for the special local regulation in support of the “War Writers Campaign Kayak For Cause” event is August 23, 2015.

Shortly after publication of the temporary final rule in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard became aware of the error in the text relating to the date. This notice corrects the error by publishing the correct date of the special local regulation, August 23, 2015.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

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

33 U.S.C. 1233.

2. Revise item (5) of TABLE to § 100.35T01-0705 to read as follows:
§ 100.35T01-0705 Special Local Regulations; Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone. *         *         *         *         *         *         * (5) War Writers Campaign Kayak For Cause • Date: August 23, 2015.
  • • Time: 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
  • • Location: All waters of Long Island Sound along the regatta route from Bridgeport, CT to Port Jefferson, NY along positions 41°09′40″ N; 073°11′04″ W, then southeast near Stratford Shoal at position 41°03′41″ N; 073°06′24″ W then south to Port Jefferson at position 40°58′37″ N; 073° 05′49″ W. (NAD 83). • Additional stipulations: All persons transiting through the area shall maintain a minimum distance of 100 yards from the kayakers.
    Dated: August 17, 2015. Katia Kroutil, Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20608 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0764] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hutchinson River, Bronx, NY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Pelham Bay Bridge, across the Hutchinson River, mile 0.5, at Bronx, New York. This deviation is necessary to replace bridge timbers, miter rails, and concrete work. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position for eighteen days.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 11 p.m. on September 11, 2015 to 11 p.m. on October 4, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0764] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, contact Ms. Judy K. Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4330, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Pelham Bay Bridge, mile 0.5, across Hutchinson River has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 8 feet at mean high water and 15 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.793(a).

    The waterway has commercial oil barge traffic of various sizes.

    Amtrak requested this temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate essential maintenance repairs.

    Under this temporary deviation, the Pelham Bay Bridge will operate according to the schedule below:

    a. From 11 p.m. on September 11, 2015 through 5 a.m. on September 14, 2015, the bridge will not open to marine traffic.

    b. From 5 a.m. on September 14, 2015 through 11 p.m. on September 18, 2015, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 3 hour advance notice.

    c. From 11 p.m. on September 25, 2015 through 5 a.m. on September 28, 2015, the bridge will not open for marine traffic.

    d. From 5 a.m. on September 28, 2015 through 11 p.m. on October 4, 2015, the bridge will open fully on signal upon 3 hour advance notice.

    The bridge will not be able to open in the event of an emergency. There is no alternate route for vessel traffic; however, vessels that can pass under the closed draws during this closure may do so at any time.

    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

    Dated: August 12, 2015. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20604 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 160 [Docket No. USCG-2005-21869] RIN 1625-AA99 Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Automatic Identification System; Notice of Arrival Information Collection AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; information collection approval.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard announces that it has received approval from the Office of Management and Budget for an information collection request associated with notice of arrival requirements in a final rule we published in the Federal Register on January 30, 2015. In that rule, we stated we would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of these collection-of-information related sections. This rule establishes today as the effective date for those sections.

    DATES:

    Sections 160.204(a)(5)(vii), 160.205, and 160.208(a) and (c) are effective August 20, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Michael Lendvay, Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance (CG-CVC), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1218, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Viewing Documents Associated With This Rule

    To view the final rule published on January 30, 2015 (80 FR 5282), or other documents in the docket for this rulemaking, go to www.regulations.gov, type the docket number, USCG-2005-21869, in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Open Docket Folder” in the first item listed. Use the following link to go directly to the docket: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=USCG-2005-;21869.

    Background

    On January 30, 2015, the Coast Guard published a final rule that revised or amended existing notice of arrival and automatic identification system requirements. 80 FR 5282. The final rule delayed the effective date of 33 CFR 160.204(a)(5)(vii), 160.205, and 160.208(a) and (c) because these sections contain collection-of-information provisions that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. On August 5, 2015, OMB approved the collection assigned OMB Control Number 1625-0100, Advance Notice of Vessel Arrival. Accordingly, we announce that sections 33 CFR 160.204(a)(5)(vii), 160.205, and 160.208(a) and (c) are effective August 20, 2015. The approval for this collection of information expires on February 28, 2017.

    We have not yet received approval from OMB regarding the 1625-0112 collection of information, Enhanced Maritime Domain Awareness via Electronic Transmission of Vessel Transit Data, which relates to automatic identification system requirements in the January 2015 final rule (80 FR 5282).

    This document is issued under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. J.G. Lantz, Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20607 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0716] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Whiskey Island Paddleboard Festival and Race; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Erie, Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the Whiskey Island Paddleboard Festival and Race. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and race participants from the navigational hazards associated with a paddleboard race.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 6:45 a.m. until 12:15 p.m. on August 22, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0716]. 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 LT Stephanie Pitts, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone 216-937-0128. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826 or 1-800-647-5527.

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a paddle sport regatta.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run would be impracticable.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define regulatory safety zones.

    Between 6:45 a.m. and 12:15 p.m. on August 22, 2015, a paddleboard race will be held on the shoreline of Lake Erie, Cleveland Harbor in Cleveland, OH, in the vicinity of Whiskey Island. It is anticipated that to 100 paddle boarders and safety vessels will participate in the event. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that such an event proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include hazardous navigation situations with less maneuverable watercraft and people falling into the water.

    C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of participants and safety vessels during the Whiskey Island Paddleboard Festival and Race. This zone will be enforced from 6:45 a.m. until 12:15 p.m. on August 22, 2015. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie; Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, OH within the following positions: 41°29′59.5″ N and 081°42′59.3″ W, then East to 41°30′4.4″ N and 081°42′ 44.5″ W, then North to 41°30′17.3″ N and 081°43′0.6″ W, then Southwest to 41°30′9.4″ N and 081°43′2.0″ W, then East to 41°29′54.9″ N and 081°43′34.4″ W, then Southeast returning to the point of origin (NAD 83).

    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    D. Regulatory Analyses

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

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Cleveland Harbor on the morning of August 22, 2015.

    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone would be effective, and thus subject to enforcement, for only five and a half hours early in the morning. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the enforcement of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    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 section 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 involves the establishment of a safety zone and, therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 165.T09-0716 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0716 Safety Zone; Whiskey Island Paddleboard Festival and Race; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH.

    (a) Location. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie; Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, OH within the following positions: 41°29′59.5″ N and 081°42′59.3″ W, then East to 41°30′4.4″ N and 081°42′44.5″ W, then North to 41°30′17.3″ N and 081°43′0.6″ W, then Southwest to 41°30′9.4″ N and 081°43′2.0″ W, then East to 41°29′54.9″ N and 081°43′34.4″ W, then Southeast returning to the point of origin (NAD 83).

    (b) Enforcement Period. This regulation will be enforced on August 22, 2015 from 6:45 a.m. until 12:15 p.m.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

    (3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.

    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: August 7, 2015. B.W. Roche, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20610 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0660; FRL-9932-18-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Alcoa BART AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to the Alcoa Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) averaging time for nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP). On July 23, 2014, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted to EPA a revision to the daily NOX emissions limits, changing from a rolling 24-hour average to a 24-hour daily average. IDEM provided a statistical analysis showing that no significant increase in emissions will occur as a result of this change. EPA is approving this SIP revision because it will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

    DATES:

    This direct final rule is effective October 19, 2015, unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 21, 2015. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0660, by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.

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

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

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0660. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Carolyn Persoon, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 353-8290, before visiting the Region 5 office.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carolyn Persoon, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8290, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. Alternate Averaging Calculation II. What action is EPA taking? III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Alternate Averaging Calculation Background for Alcoa BART NOX Emission Limits and Calculations

    On June 11, 2012, EPA approved BART NOX emission limits and compliance requirements for Alcoa into the Indiana SIP to meet Regional Haze requirements (77 FR 34218).1 The rule, 326 IAC 26-2-2, sets emission limits, which include averaging times, for Alcoa's Warrick Power Station located in Newburgh, Indiana.

    1 EPA finalized a limited approval of revisions to the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) on January 14, 2011, and March 10, 2011, addressing regional haze for the first implementation period that ends 2018. This action was in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules for states to prevent and remedy future and existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas through a regional haze program. As part of this action, EPA approved limits for the Alcoa facility that EPA finds satisfy the requirements for best available retrofit technology (BART).

    For the original Regional Haze SIP, IDEM submitted an engineering analysis for the rulemaking that included recommended BART limits for particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOX. For Alcoa's Warrick Plant Boilers 2 and 3, the averaging time for the NOX limit was a 24-hour rolling average. IDEM revised the rule 326 IAC 26-2-2 on March 12, 2014, with an effective date of June 29, 2014 to change the NOX averaging time for Boilers 2 and 3 to be 24-hour daily averages rather than 24-hour rolling averages, in order to be consistent with other pollutant averaging times.

    On March 12, 2014, the Indiana Environmental Rules Board approved these rule changes in accordance with the provisions of Title 13 of the Indiana Code. On November 20, 2013, IDEM provided a public notice and comment on the SIP revision in the Indiana Register. There were no requests for a public hearing, and no public comments were received.

    Analysis of Revision

    EPA's approval is based on whether the rule revision meets the requirements of section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 4202(l). In particular, EPA considered whether the changes made to the compliance averaging times for Boilers 2 and 3 would allow for higher overall emissions of NOX on an hourly basis while still meeting the emission limits. IDEM submitted to EPA a supplemental analysis showing the maximum difference between the two calculation methods.

    IDEM's analysis compared the two averaging times using the Warrick Plant continuous emissions monitor (CEM) data for NOX from August 2013, the month with the highest NOX emissions. This data and analysis can be found in the docket. Using this data, IDEM calculated both 24-hour rolling and 24-hour daily averages for the NOX emissions, and then calculated the difference between each 24-hour period. The maximum calculated difference in emissions between the two methods was 0.01 pounds per million BTU (lbs/mmBTU), which EPA determined not to be statistically significant using a paired t-test analysis. EPA also evaluated air quality monitoring data for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), as well as fine particulate (PM2.5) and ozone, since NOX is a precursor for both. Current design values (2012-2014) for the NO2 1-hour standard (100 ppb), ozone (75 ppb) and PM2.5 standards (12 μg/m3 for the annual and 35 μg/m3 for the 24-hour standard) for the area all show attainment of the standards at 35 ppb, 72 ppb, and 10.9 and 25 μg/m3, respectively. See EPA's Web site on design values at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. EPA has determined that the area will maintain the standards because ambient levels are currently below the NAAQS and continue to decline. A potential emissions increase of 0.01 lbs/mmBTU is not likely to cause a violation of the NAAQS, therefore noninterference has been demonstrated.

    The Indiana SIP revision is therefore approvable because the revision meets the requirements under 110(l), given that the area is attaining all applicable NAAQS, and that the revision will not impact the ability to maintain the NAAQS.

    II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving a revision to the Alcoa BART averaging times for the Warrick Plant Boilers 2 and 3 (326 lAC 26-2-2(2)(C)(i)), from 24-hour rolling average to 24-hour daily average. EPA's review and analysis has determined the revision will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, as prescribed by section 110(l) of the CAA.

    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state plan amendment if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective October 19, 2015 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by September 21, 2015. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective October 19, 2015.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Indiana Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. 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 CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 19, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. In § 52.770 the table in paragraph (c) is amended under “Article 26. Regional Haze”, “Rule 2. Best Available Retrofit Technology Emission Limitations” by revising the entry for 26-2-2 “Alcoa emission limitations and compliance methods” to read as follows:
    § 52.770 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Indiana Regulations Indiana citation Subject Indiana
  • effective date
  • EPA Approval date Notes
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Article 26. Regional Haze Rule 2. Best Available Retrofit Technology Emission Limitations *         *         *         *         *         *         * 26-2-2 Alcoa emission limitations and compliance methods 6/29/2014 8/20/2015, [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-20528 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0304, FRL 9932-53-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana; Correction AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Montana on March 17, 2010, August 1, 2011, November 22, 2011, and September 19, 2014. The revisions are to the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) and include minor editorial and grammatical changes, updates to citations and references to federal and state laws and regulations, revisions to open burning rules, changes to the process for appealing air quality permits, and providing a process for revocation of air quality permits when owners cannot be found by mail. Also in this action, EPA is correcting final rules pertaining to Montana's SIP. On January 29, 2010, EPA took direct final action to approve SIP revisions as submitted by the State of Montana on January 16, 2009 and May 4, 2009. EPA subsequently discovered an error in our January 29, 2010 direct final action related to “incorporation by reference” (IBR) materials and the associated regulatory text numbering. EPA is correcting this error with today's action. Finally, EPA is updating the Montana nonregulatory provisions table to add carbon monoxide maintenance plans for Billings, Montana, and Great Falls, Montana approved by EPA on March 30, 2015 and April 1, 2015, respectively. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on September 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0304. 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, e.g., 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 Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

    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]

    I. Background

    The State of Montana submitted SIP revisions containing amendments to IBR current federal regulations and other material into air quality rules of the ARM. The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) published on June 1, 2015 (80 FR 30984) proposed approval of Montana's submissions with respect to the following: Grammatical changes made to ARM 17.8.102(1), and all revisions of 17.8.802(1)(c) and 17.8.822(9) from the March 17, 2010 submittal; revisions to ARM 17.8.604(1)(a), 17.8.610(2), 17.8.612(10) and (11), 17.8.613(8) and (9), 17.8.614(8) and (9), 17.8.615(6) and (7), and 17.8.763(3) from the November 22, 2011 submission; citations and references to federal law and State rules superseding and replacing all previous versions of ARM 17.8.102(1)(a), 17.8.102(1)(b), and 17.8.102(1)(c) from the September 19, 2014 submittal; and language added to ARM 17.8.102(3) and 17.8.102(4)(a) through (d) from the September 19, 2014 submittal. The reasons for our approval are provided in detail in the NPR.

    For reasons explained in the NPR, EPA also provided notice that language in ARM 17.8.102 with a State effective date of October 26, 2007 was in effect between January 16, 2010 and publication of our proposed notice on June 1, 2015. Finally, for reasons explained in our NPR, EPA proposed to correct erroneous amendatory instructions published in the Federal Register on January 29, 2010 (75 FR 4698).

    II. Response to Comments

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

    III. Final Action

    EPA is approving grammatical changes made to ARM 17.8.102(1), and all revisions of 17.8.802(1)(c) and 17.8.822(9) from the March 17, 2010 submittal. We are approving the November 22, 2011 submittal's revisions to ARM 17.8.604(1)(a), 17.8.610(2), 17.8.612(10) and (11), 17.8.613(8) and (9), 17.8.614(8) and (9), 17.8.615(6) and (7), and 17.8.763(3). We are approving the September 19, 2014 submittal's citations and references to federal law and State rules superseding and replacing all previous versions of ARM 17.8.102(1)(a), 17.8.102(1)(b), and 17.8.102(1)(c). Previous submittals were received on March 17, 2010 and August 1, 2011. We are also approving language added to ARM 17.8.102(3) and 17.8.102(4)(a) through (d) from the September 19, 2014 submittal.

    Our action provides notice that language in ARM 17.8.102 with a State effective date of October 26, 2007 was in effect between January 16, 2010 and June 1, 2015. EPA is also adding to table (e) of CAA § 52.1370, “EPA-approved nonregulatory provisions,” to reflect the final EPA approval of carbon monoxide limited maintenance plans for the Billings (80 FR 16571, March 30, 2015) and Great Falls (80 FR 17331, April 1, 2015) carbon monoxide maintenance areas. These additions were inadvertently left out of the table when these maintenance plans were approved. Finally, EPA is correcting erroneous amendatory instructions published in the Federal Register on January 29, 2010 (75 FR 4698).

    IV. 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 of the ARM regarding citations and references to federal and State laws and regulations; open burning rules; air quality permits appeal process; and revocation of air quality permits discussed in section III, EPA's Review of the State of Montana's March 17, 2010; August 1, 2011; November 22, 2011; and September 19, 2014 Submittals, and CFR Correction, of the NPR (80 FR 30984, June 1, 2015). EPA is also correcting incorporation by reference errors in our final rulemaking “Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Montana; Revised Format for Materials Being Incorporated by Reference” (80 FR 22909, April 24, 2015) to reflect the final EPA approval of carbon monoxide limited maintenance plans for the Billings (80 FR 16571, March 30, 2015,) and Great Falls (80 FR 17331, April 1, 2015) carbon monoxide maintenance areas. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    V. Statutory and Executive 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 final action merely approves some state law as meeting federal requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet federal requirements; this final action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this final 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: August 4, 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 BB—Montana
    2. Section 52.1370 is amended by: a. In paragraph (c), revising the table entries for “17.8.102”, “17.8.604”, “17.8.610”, “17.8.612”, “17.8.613”, “17.8.614”, “17.8.615”, “17.8.763”, “17.8.802”, “17.8.822.” b. In paragraph (e), revising the second table entry under “(2) Cascade County” and the first table entry under “(9) Yellowstone County.”

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 52.1370 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    State citation Rule title State effective date EPA final rule date Final rule citation Comments (i) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 01, General Provisions *         *         *         *         *         *         * 17.8.102 Incorporation by Reference 10/16/2009,
  • 06/12/2014
  • 8/20/2015 [insert Federal Register citation]
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * (iv) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 06, Open Burning *         *         *         *         *         *         * 17.8.604 Prohibited Open Burning—When Permit Required 04/15/2011 8/20/2015 [insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * 17.610 Major Open Burning Source Restrictions 04/15/2011 8/20/2015 [insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * 17.8.612 Conditional Air Quality Open Burning Permits 04/15/2011 8/20/2015 [insert Federal Register citation] 17.8.613 Christmas Tree Waste Open Burning Permits 04/15/2011 8/20/2015 [insert Federal Register citation] 17.8.614 Commercial Film Production Open Burning Permits 04/15/2011 8/20/2015 [insert Federal Register citation] 17.8.615 Firefighter Training 04/15/2011 8/20/2015 [insert Federal Register citation] (v) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 07, Permit Construction and Operation of Air Contaminant Sources *         *         *         *         *         *         * 17.8.763 Revocation of Permit 04/15/2011 8/20/2015 [insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * (vi) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 08, Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality *         *         *         *         *         *         * 17.8.802 Incorporation by Reference 10/16/2009 8/20/2015 [insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * 17.8.822 Air Quality Analysis 10/16/2009 8/20/2015 [insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (e) * * *

    Title/Subject State effective date Notice of final rule date NFR Citation *         *         *         *         *         *         * (2) Cascade County *         *         *         *         *         *         * Great Falls Carbon Monoxide (CO)—Maintenance Plan, State of Montana Air Quality Control Implementation Plan, Cascade County Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan, Chapter 7, Great Falls Carbon Monoxide (CO) Limited Maintenance Plan and the Associated Alternative Monitoring Strategy N/A 4/1/2015 80 FR 17331 *         *         *         *         *         *         * (9) Yellowstone County Billings Carbon Monoxide (CO)—Maintenance Plan, State of Montana Air Quality Control Implementation Plan, Yellowstone County Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan, Chapter 56, Billings Carbon Monoxide (CO) Limited Maintenance Plan and the associated Alternative Monitoring Strategy N/A 3/30/2015 80 FR 16571 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    3. Section 52.1397 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(69) to read as follows:
    § 52.1397 Original identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    (69) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan which were submitted by the State of Montana on January 16, 2009 and May 4, 2009. The revisions are to the Administrative Rules of Montana; they make minor editorial and grammatical changes, update the citations and references to Federal laws and regulations, and make other minor changes to conform to federal regulations.

    (i) Incorporation by reference.

    (A) Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) sections 17.8.102 Incorporation by Reference—Publication Dates, 17.8.301 Definitions, 17.8.901 Definitions, and 17.8.1007 Baseline for Determining Credit for Emissions and Air Quality Offsets, effective October 24, 2008.

    (B) Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) section 17.8.308 Particulate Matter, Airborne, effective February 13, 2009.

    [FR Doc. 2015-20496 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 120403249-2492-02] RIN 0648-XE088 Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; 2015 Recreational Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Hogfish AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for the hogfish recreational sector in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic for the 2015 fishing year through this temporary rule. NMFS estimates recreational landings from the 2014 and 2015 fishing years have exceeded the recreational annual catch limit (ACL) for hogfish. Therefore, NMFS reduces the length of the 2015 recreational fishing season, i.e., closes the recreational sector, for hogfish in the South Atlantic EEZ on August 24, 2015. This closure is necessary to protect the hogfish resource.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, August 24, 2015, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Britni LaVine, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes hogfish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

    The recreational ACL for hogfish is 85,355 lb (38,716 kg) and was implemented through Regulatory Amendment 13 to the FMP (78 FR 36113, June 17, 2013). In accordance with regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(u)(2), if recreational landings exceed the recreational ACL, then NMFS will monitor recreational landings for a persistence in increased landings during the following fishing year. If necessary, the Assistant Administrator, NMFS (AA), will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to reduce the length of the following fishing season by the amount necessary to ensure landings do not exceed the recreational ACL in the following fishing year.

    During the 2014 fishing year, hogfish recreational landings exceeded the recreational ACL by 26,448 lb (11,996 kg). For the 2015 fishing year, preliminary landings data from the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center indicate that the hogfish recreational ACL has been exceeded by 142,364 lb (64,575 kg). Therefore, this temporary rule implements an AM to reduce the length of the hogfish recreational sector (i.e., close the recreational sector) of the snapper-grouper fishery for the remainder of the 2015 fishing year. As a result, the recreational sector for hogfish in the South Atlantic EEZ will be closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time August 24, 2015.

    During the closure, the bag and possession limits for hogfish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ are zero. The recreational sector for hogfish will reopen on January 1, 2016, the beginning of the 2016 recreational fishing season.

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of hogfish and the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(u)(2) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and public comment.

    This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the recreational sector for hogfish constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the AMs established by the Comprehensive ACL Amendment (77 FR 15916, March 16, 2012) and located at 50 CFR 622.193(u)(2) have already been subject to notice and public comment. All that remains is to notify the public of the reduced recreational season (recreational closure) for hogfish for the remainder of the 2015 fishing year. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect the hogfish resource, since time for notice and public comment will allow for continued recreational harvest and further exceedance of the recreational ACL.

    For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20596 Filed 8-17-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 161 Thursday, August 20, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 1, 23, 25, 27, 29, 61, 91, 121, 125, 135 [Docket No. FAA-2013-0485; Notice No. 12-09B] RIN 2120-AJ94 Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems; Reopening of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    This action reopens the comment period for the regulatory evaluation associated with the FAA's June 11, 2013 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems. The regulatory evaluation associated with the NPRM was not posted to the docket prior to the close of the comment period. Therefore, the FAA is reopening the comment period to allow the public the opportunity to adequately analyze the full regulatory evaluation for the NPRM. The FAA will accept comments on the regulatory evaluation only; and not on the regulatory changes proposed in the NPRM.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the NPRM published on June 11, 2013 (78 FR 34935) closed October 15, 2013, and is reopened until September 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments on the posted regulatory evaluation identified by docket number FAA-2013-0485 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Valentine Castaneda, ARM-104, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-7977; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    See the “Additional Information” section for information on how to comment on this action and how the FAA will handle comments received. The “Additional Information” section also contains related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of proprietary or confidential business information. In addition, there is information on obtaining copies of related rulemaking documents.

    Background

    On June 11, 2013, the FAA issued Notice No. 1209, entitled “Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems,” 78 FR 34935. The FAA requested that comments on that proposal be received on or before September 9, 2013.

    Dassault Aviation submitted a request to extend the comment period from September 9, 2013 to October 15, 2013 to allow adequate time to analyze and provide comments on the NPRM, draft AC 90-106A, and draft AC 20-167A, all of which are directly related to the proposed rule. On September 6, 2013, the FAA published a notice in the Federal Register extending the NPRM comment period to October 15, 2013 to coincide with the close of the comment period for draft AC 90-106A and draft AC 20-167A. 78 FR 54790.

    The regulatory evaluation associated with the NPRM was not posted to the docket prior to the close of the comment period. Therefore, to ensure that the public has the opportunity to provide comments specifically on the regulatory evaluation posted in the docket (FAA-2013-0485), the FAA is reopening the comment period for 30 days to allow for comments on the regulatory evaluation only. The FAA will not address comments on the NPRM because the comment period for the NPRM closed on October 15, 2013.

    Accordingly, the comment period for Notice No. 12-09 is reopened until September 21, 2015.

    Additional Information A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the regulatory evaluation, explain the reasons for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

    B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—

    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or

    3. Accessing the Government Publishing Office's Web page at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/.

    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.

    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 14, 2015. Lirio Liu, Director, Office of Rulemaking.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20555 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Chapter VI [Docket ID ED-2015-OPE-0103] Negotiated Rulemaking Committee; Public Hearings AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Intent to establish negotiated rulemaking committee.

    SUMMARY:

    We announce our intention to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee to prepare proposed regulations for the Federal Student Aid programs authorized under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The committee will include representatives of organizations or groups with interests that are significantly affected by the subject matter of the proposed regulations. We also announce two public hearings at which interested parties may comment on the topics suggested by the Department and may suggest additional topics that should be considered for action by the negotiating committee. In addition, we announce that the Department will accept written comments on the topics suggested by the Department and suggestions for additional issues that should be considered for action by the negotiating committee.

    DATES:

    The dates, times, and locations of the public hearings are listed under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. We must receive written comments suggesting issues that should be considered for action by the negotiating committee on or before September 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments by fax or by email. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under “How to use Regulations.gov” in the Help section.

    Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address them to Wendy Macias, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 8013, Washington, DC 20006.

    Privacy Note:

    The Department's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public (including those comments submitted by postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery) available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information about the public hearings, go to www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2016/index.html or contact: Wendy Macias, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 8013, Washington, DC 20006. Telephone: (202) 502-7526 or by email: [email protected]

    For information about negotiated rulemaking in general, see The Negotiated Rulemaking Process for Title IV Regulations, Frequently Asked Questions at www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/hea08/neg-reg-faq.html or contact: Wendy Macias, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 8013, Washington, DC 20006. Telephone: (202) 502-7526 or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) toll free at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 492 of the HEA requires that, before publishing any proposed regulations to implement programs authorized under title IV of the HEA, the Secretary obtain public involvement in the development of the proposed regulations. After obtaining advice and recommendations from the public, the Secretary conducts negotiated rulemaking to develop the proposed regulations. We announce our intent to develop proposed title IV regulations by following the negotiated rulemaking procedures in section 492 of the HEA.

    We intend to select participants for the negotiated rulemaking committee from nominees of the organizations and groups that represent the interests significantly affected by the proposed regulations. To the extent possible, we will select from the nominees individual negotiators who reflect the diversity among program participants, in accordance with section 492(b)(1) of the HEA.

    Regulatory Issues

    We intend to convene a committee to develop proposed regulations for determining which acts or omissions of an institution of higher education (“institution”) a borrower may assert as a defense to repayment of a loan made under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Federal Direct Loan) Program (“borrower defenses”) and the consequences of such borrower defenses for borrowers, institutions, and the Secretary. Specifically, we intend to address: (1) The procedures to be used for a borrower to establish a defense to repayment; (2) the criteria that the Department will use to identify acts or omissions of an institution that constitute defenses to repayment of Federal Direct Loans to the Secretary; (3) the standards and procedures that the Department will use to determine the liability of the institution participating in the Federal Direct Loan Program for amounts based on borrower defenses; and (4) the effect of borrower defenses on institutional capability assessments.

    After a complete review of the public comments presented at the public hearings and in the written submissions, we will publish a document (or documents) in the Federal Register announcing the specific topics for which we intend to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee and a request for nominations for individual negotiators for the committee who represent the communities of interest that would be significantly affected by the proposed regulations. This document will also be posted on the Department's Web site at: www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2016/index.html.

    Public Hearings

    We will hold two public hearings for interested parties to discuss the rulemaking agenda. The public hearings will be held:

    • September 10, 2015, at the U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Eighth Floor Conference Center, Washington, DC 20006.

    • September 16, 2015, at the Courtyard San Francisco Downtown, 299 2nd Street, Rincon Hill Room, San Francisco, CA 94105.

    The public hearings will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., local time. Further information on the public hearing sites is available at www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2016/index.html.

    Individuals who would like to present comments at the public hearings must register by sending an email to [email protected] The email should include the name of the presenter along with the public hearing at which the individual would like to speak, and a general timeframe during which the individual would like to speak (for example, a presenter could indicate morning or afternoon, or before 11:00 a.m. or after 3:00 p.m.). We will attempt to accommodate each speaker's preference, but, if we are unable to do so, we will make the determination on a first-come first-served basis (based on the time and date the email was received). It is likely that each participant will be limited to five minutes. The Department will notify registrants of the location and time slot reserved for them. An individual may make only one presentation at the public hearings. If we receive more registrations than we are able to accommodate, the Department reserves the right to reject the registration of an entity or individual that is affiliated with an entity or individual that is already scheduled to present comments, and to select among registrants to ensure that a broad range of entities and individuals is allowed to present. We will accept walk-in registrations for any remaining time slots on a first-come first-served basis, beginning at 8:30 a.m. on the day of the public hearing at the Department's on-site registration table. Registration is not required to observe the public hearings.

    The Department will post transcriptions of the hearings to www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2016/index.html. Although the Department will not be filming the hearings, as this is a public meeting, speakers should be aware that they may be filmed or recorded by members of the public.

    Speakers may submit written comments at the public hearings. In addition, the Department will accept written comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal, and by postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery, through September 16, 2015. (See the ADDRESSES section of this document for submission information.)

    Schedule for Negotiations

    We anticipate that any committee established after the public hearings will begin negotiations in January 2016, with the committee meeting for up to three sessions of approximately three days each at roughly monthly intervals. The committee will meet in the Washington, DC area. The dates and locations of these meetings will be published in a subsequent document in the Federal Register, and will be posted on the Department's Web site at: www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2016/index.html.

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting Wendy Macias, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 8013, Washington, DC 20006. Telephone: (202) 502-7526 or by email: [email protected]

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site. You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Delegation of Authority:

    The Secretary of Education has delegated authority to Jamienne S. Studley, Deputy Under Secretary, to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.

    Program Authority:

    20 U.S.C. 1098a.

    Dated: August 18, 2015. Jamienne S. Studley, Deputy Under Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20669 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3050 [Docket No. RM2015-17; Order No. 2661] Periodic Reporting AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports (Proposal Eight). This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: September 8, 2015. Reply Comments are due: September 22, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Summary of Proposal III. Initial Commission Action IV. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction

    On August 5, 2015, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate an informal rulemaking proceeding in order to consider changes in analytical principles relating to periodic reports.1 Proposal Eight is attached to the Petition and proposes an analytical method change related to the avoided costs for 5-Digit pallets Standard Mail Carrier Route flats discounts. Petition at 1.

    1 Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Eight), August 5, 2015 (Petition).

    This Petition was filed in response to Order No. 2472, which directed the Postal Service “to file a proposed methodology for determining the costs avoided for the 5-digit pallet presort Standard Mail Carrier Route flats workshare discount, as described in the body of [Order No. 2472], within 90 days of the date of [Order No. 2472].” 2

    2 Docket No. R2015-4, Order on Revised Price Adjustments for Standard Mail, Periodicals and Package Services Products and Related Mail Classification Changes, May 7, 2015, at 63 (Order No. 2472).

    II. Summary of Proposal

    The Postal Service explains that prior to the planned price adjustments in Docket No. R2015-4, the Carrier Route product only afforded customers entry discounts. Petition, Proposal Eight at 1. The Postal Service's price adjustment in Docket No. R2015-4 introduced a preparation discount on 5-Digit Carrier Route pallets. Proposal Eight seeks to modify the Standard Mail Flats Cost Model to produce estimates of mail processing cost avoidances for Carrier Route pieces on 5-Digit Carrier Route pallets. Id. The Petition states that the general architecture of the model is retained, but it is expanded to explicitly model the unique characteristics and flows of Carrier Route flats. Id.

    The Petition further states that when a commercial mailer has at least 250 pounds of Carrier Route mail destinating in a 5-Digit or 5-Digit Scheme (Labeling List L001) the customer can prepare a Carrier Route pallet. Preparation of a Carrier Route pallet enables the Postal Service to cross-dock the pallet directly to the delivery unit and bypass bundle sortation operations. Id. at 1-2.

    The structure and methodology used in estimating cost avoidances of Standard Mail Flats provide estimates of costs avoided for pieces prepared on Carrier Route pallets. Id. at 2. The Postal Service explains that this model provides engineering cost estimates of bundles and pieces based on the preparation profile of pieces within each rate element. Id.

    The Postal Service states that as in the model to estimate cost avoidances for Standard Mail Flats, the proposed Carrier Route pallet cost avoidance model's mail preparation profile is taken from the Mail Characteristics Study in USPS-FY14-14 to account for Carrier Route pieces on Carrier Route pallets and Carrier Route pieces on all other containers. The Postal Service asserts that the Carrier Route data from the Mail Characteristics Study in USPS-FY14-14 is modified to exclude pieces prepared in FSS bundles. Id. The new preparation profile includes only pieces that qualify for Carrier Route rates under the new qualification standards. Id.

    The Postal Service's methodology used to calculate bundle flow and piece flow are unchanged from the Standard Mail Flats Cost Model.3 Id. However, the Postal Service contends that the proposal amends the flow parameters within the model that are specific to Carrier Route.4

    3 Including all assumptions, for example the bundle breakage rate.

    4 The Postal Service cites to the Excel files submitted with its petition in Docket No. RM2015-16, USPS-RM2015-16/1, August 5, 2015. Compare, e.g., File STD_FLATS_Order 2472.xlsx, tab CR Pallet Model with tab 5D Auto Model Rev.

    III. Initial Commission Action

    The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2015-17 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. Additional information concerning the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's Web site at http://www.prc.gov. Interested persons may submit comments on the Petition and Proposal Eight no later than September 8, 2015. Reply comments are due no later than September 22, 2015. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission designates Nina Yeh to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) representing the interests of the general public in this proceeding.

    IV. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:

    1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2015-17 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service Requesting Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider a Proposed Change in Analytical Principles (Proposal Eight), filed August 5, 2015.

    2. Comments are due no later than September 8, 2015. Reply comments are due no later than September 22, 2015.

    3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Nina Yeh to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.

    4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Ruth Ann Abrams, Acting Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20534 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0660; FRL-9932-17-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Alcoa BART AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Alcoa Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) averaging time for nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP). On July 23, 2014, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted to EPA a revision to the daily NOX emissions limits, changing from a rolling 24-hour average to a 24-hour daily average. IDEM provided an analysis showing that no significant increase in emissions will occur as a result of this change. EPA is approving this SIP revision because it will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0660, by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected].

    3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.

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

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

    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Final Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carolyn Persoon, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8290, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20529 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0337; FRL-9932-57-Region 4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida; Regional Haze Plan Amendment—Lakeland Electric C.D. McIntosh AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the State of Florida's March 10, 2015, State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, submitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). This submittal fulfills Florida's commitment to EPA to provide a regional haze SIP revision with a Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions limit for Unit 1 at the Lakeland Electric-C.D. McIntosh Power Plant (McIntosh) reflecting best operating practices for good combustion. States are required to address the BART provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's regional haze regulations as part of a program to prevent any future and remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas (national parks and wilderness areas) caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the “regional haze program”) and to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. In this action, EPA proposes to approve the BART NOX emissions limit for Unit 1 at McIntosh into the Florida SIP.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before September 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0337, by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.

    4. Mail: “EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0337,” Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0337. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person 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 Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached by phone at (404) 562-9031 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background and Overview

    On December 10, 2012, EPA proposed to approve the BART and reasonable progress determinations for a number of EGUs in Florida as part of Florida's regional haze SIP. See 77 FR 73369. In that action, EPA proposed approval of Florida's BART determination for emissions Units 1 and 2 at McIntosh found subject to BART. On August 29, 2013, EPA issued a final, full approval of Florida's regional haze SIP. See 78 FR 53250. In that final action, EPA approved the BART determination for the McIntosh facility, including the determination that the existing level of control for NOX at Unit 1, best operating practices for good combustion, is the NOX BART control for Unit 1. See 78 FR 53263. As described in the August 29, 2013, final action, FDEP submitted a letter to EPA dated July 30, 2013, in which the State committed to provide EPA with a regional haze SIP revision no later than March 19, 2015, the deadline for the State's five-year regional haze periodic progress report SIP, that would include a NOX BART emissions limit for Unit 1 reflecting best operating practices for good combustion.1 FDEP also committed to modify the title V permit for McIntosh to include this new limit.2

    1 In that final action, EPA concluded that it “is reasonable for the State to implement a NOX BART emissions limit for Unit 1 upon EPA's approval of the” five-year regional haze periodic progress report “because of the limited visibility impact of NOX emissions from Unit 1 and because the BART limit will reflect the existing level of control.” 78 FR 53263.

    2 FDEP's July 30, 2013, commitment letter is located in the docket for today's proposed action.

    To fulfill its commitment in accordance with the July 30, 2013 letter, the State of Florida submitted a SIP revision dated March 10, 2015, seeking to revise its regional haze SIP to include a NOX BART emissions limit for Unit 1 and the April 30, 2014, construction permit establishing this NOX BART emissions limit for Unit 1. The permit contains supporting conditions (e.g., monitoring requirements) and a condition specifying a schedule for McIntosh to apply for a revision to its title V permit to reflect the new permit conditions. In this action, EPA proposes to approve Florida's March 10, 2015, SIP submittal for the reasons discussed in Section II, below.

    II. What is EPA's Analysis of Florida's Plan?

    Florida's March 10, 2015, SIP revision seeks to revise the State's regional haze SIP to include a NOX BART emissions limit for McIntosh Unit 1 and a construction permit (DEP Permit No. 1050004-034-AC) dated April 30, 2014, for Unit 1 containing this limit. The SIP revision and construction permit establish a NOX BART emissions limit of 0.46 pounds per million British Thermal Unit (lb/MMBtu) of heat input on a 30-operating day rolling average for Unit 1 in accordance with Florida's July 30, 2013, commitment letter and the NOX BART control determination. Florida set this limit by considering NOX emissions data for Unit 1 from 2001-2003, the baseline period used by the State as the basis for its BART determination for McIntosh.3 The permit states that the limit is effective no later than EPA's approval of Florida's March 10, 2015, regional haze SIP revision. Compliance with the BART NOX emissions limit will be demonstrated with a NOX CEMS that must comply with the certification and quality assurance, and other applicable requirements of Rule 62-297.520, F.A.C.; 40 CFR 60.13, including certification of each device in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, Performance Specifications and 40 CFR 60.7(a)(5); or 40 CFR part 75. Quality assurance procedures must conform to all applicable sections of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F or 40 CFR part 75.

    3 See July 22, 2015, email from Preston McLane, FDEP, to Lynorae Benjamin, EPA Region 4, located in the docket for today's proposed action.

    The construction permit also sets the deadlines for McIntosh to submit an application to revise its title V permit to include the NOX BART limit and supporting conditions for Unit 1. Section 2.8 of the permit states that the “permittee shall apply for the Title V permit revision within 180 days of U.S. EPA's approval of the amendment to Florida's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP).”

    EPA proposes to find that the March 10, 2015, SIP revision containing the NOX BART emissions limit and new permit conditions for Unit 1 fulfills Florida's commitment to establish a NOX BART emissions limit for Unit 1 that reflects best operating practices for good combustion and to amend the facility's title V permit to include the permit limit and supporting conditions. EPA has evaluated the CEMS data reported to EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) for Unit 1 from 2001-2003 and believes that the NOX BART emissions limit is consistent with the NOX BART control determination.4 Therefore, EPA proposes to incorporate the NOX BART limit for Unit 1 and Air Permit No. 1050004-034-AC into Florida's regional haze SIP.

    4 The docket for today's proposed action contains the 2001-2003 CEMS data for Unit 1 from CAMD.

    III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Florida's March 10, 2015, regional haze SIP revision and revise the regional haze SIP to include the NOX BART emissions limit for Unit 1 described above and the April 30, 2014, construction permit containing this limit. EPA is proposing to approve Florida's SIP submission because the submission meets the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in the CAA and in EPA's regional haze regulations and the applicable requirements of section 110 of the CAA. As discussed above, EPA fully approved Florida's regional haze SIP on August 29, 2013. Today's action does not reopen EPA's final BART control determination for McIntosh Unit 1 or any other aspect of EPA's August 29, 2013 final action.

    IV. 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. See 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 proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 5, 2015. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20497 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 49 CFR Part 37 [Docket DOT-OST-2015-0075] Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities; Service Criteria for Complementary Paratransit Fares AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Notice of petition for rulemaking; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    This document seeks public comments on a petition for rulemaking from Access Services concerning the Department's regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with respect to the method of determining the fare for a trip charged to an ADA paratransit eligible user. The petition asks the Department to revise its regulation to allow for a “coordinated” or two-tier fare structure. The current regulation provides that the fare shall not exceed twice the fare that would be charged to an individual paying full fare for a similar trip on the fixed route system.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by September 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit your comments by only one of the following methods:

    Online: Use the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    U.S. Mail: Send your comments to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: Go to Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, U.S. Department of Transportation headquarters, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern-time, Monday through Friday except Federal holidays.

    Telefax: Send your comments to 202-493-2251.

    Instructions: All comments must include the docket number for this rulemaking: DOT-OST-2015-0075. Submit two copies of your comments if you submit them by mail. For confirmation that DOT received your comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under “Supplementary Information,” below, for Privacy Act information pertinent to any submitted comments or materials, and you may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000, at 65 FR 19477.

    Docket Access: For access to background documents and comments received in the rulemaking docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jill Laptosky, Attorney-Advisor, Office of General Counsel, U.S. DOT, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, phone: (202) 493-0308, or email, [email protected]; or Bonnie Graves, Assistant Chief Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, same address, phone: (202) 366-4011, or email, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On March 4, 2015, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) received a petition for rulemaking from Access Services, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit provider for 44 fixed route transit providers in Los Angeles County, California. Access Services uses a “coordinated” or two-tier fare structure where it generally charges $2.75 for one-way trips up to 19.9 miles, and $3.50 for one-way trips of 20 miles or more. In some cases, these fares exceed twice the fixed route fare. The DOT's ADA regulation at 49 CFR 37.131(c) provides that the fare for a trip charged to an ADA paratransit eligible user of the complementary paratransit service shall not exceed twice the fare that would be charged to an individual paying full fare for a trip of similar length, at a similar time of day, on the entity's fixed route system. In recent triennial reviews of some fixed route providers in Los Angeles County, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has made findings that the ADA paratransit fares exceed twice the fixed route fare. In other words, some paratransit riders are paying more for ADA paratransit fares than they should be under the Department's existing regulations.

    Access Services' petition for rulemaking has been placed in the docket. Access Services asserts in its petition that its two-tier fare structure is simple for riders to understand and easy for Access Services and its providers to implement. In its petition, Access Services requests that the Department propose amending its ADA regulations to allow for a coordinated fare structure as follows:

    Proposed Amendment to DOT ADA Regulations

    The Access Services proposes the following addition to 49 CFR 37.131(c) on service criteria for complementary paratransit:

    • Alternatively, the maximum fare that may be charged by an entity which administers a coordinated paratransit plan for 20 or more fixed route members pursuant to 49 CFR 37.141 and approved pursuant to 49 CFR 37.147 shall be no more than twice the regional average fixed-route fare determined as follows:

    ○ The entity may calculate a regional average fixed-route fare by obtaining a statistically-valid, random sample of its recent paratransit trips, calculating the applicable fixed-route fare for those trips and averaging the results. The sample may be subdivided by distance to determine the regional average fixed-route fares for trips of a certain mileage.

    The Department's regulations at 49 CFR 5.11 permit any person to petition the Secretary to amend a rule. It is solely within the discretion of the Secretary to grant or deny such a petition, and the Secretary has not yet decided whether or not to grant or deny the Access Services' petition. In order to supplement the information provided by Access Services in support of its petition for rulemaking, the Department is requesting public comments on the issue presented in the petition. The Department will use this collective information in the development of the technical review that will serve as the basis for determining whether to grant or deny the petition.

    The Department is especially interested in hearing from individuals who use ADA complementary paratransit services in order to better understand how they would be impacted if the Department adopted the Access Services' language or similar language. Would a more simplified tiered fare system, set by the local transit agencies, be beneficial to individuals with disabilities using public transportation in regions with multiple fixed route providers? Would any tiered system need to be capped at a certain amount (e.g., twice the fare on a comparable fixed route trip)? How many tiers would be unmanageable for individuals with disabilities?

    The Department is also interested to hear from ADA complementary paratransit providers throughout the country. How do these paratransit providers, particularly in regions with many fixed-route operators, currently determine fares in order to comply with the Department's current regulations? What procedures or best practices do they use? What challenges do ADA complementary paratransit providers face in setting fares under the current regulations? How many fixed-route providers do you coordinate with?

    Issued in Washington, DC, this 29th day of July 2015, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.27(a). Kathryn B. Thomson, General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20467 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
    80 161 Thursday, August 20, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request August 13, 2015.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. 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 (202) 720-8958.

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

    Foreign Agricultural Service

    Title: Agriculture Wood Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund.

    OMB Control Number: 0551-0045.

    Summary of Collection: Section 12315 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79) authorizes distribution out of the Agriculture Wood Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund (“Agriculture Wool Trust Fund”) in each of calendar years 2014 through 2019, payable to qualifying claimants. Eligible claimants are directed to submit a notarized affidavit, following the statutory procedures specified Section 12314 (c) or (d) of the Act.

    Need and Use of the Information: The Foreign Agricultural Service will use the information provided in the affidavits to certify the claimants' eligibility and to authorize payment from the Agriculture Wood Trust Fund.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other-for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 55.

    Frequency of Responses: Record keeping, Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 165.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20432 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2014-0094] Availability of a Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Biological Control of Emerald Ash Borer AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared a final environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact relative to the release of a parasitic wasp, Spathius galinae, into the continental United States for use as a biological control agent to reduce the severity of emerald ash borer infestations. Based on the finding of no significant impact, we have determined that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Robert Tichenor, Entomologist, Pest Permitting Branch, Regulations Permits and Manuals, Plant Health Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2198.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis, is an invasive wood-boring beetle from Asia threatening ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) in the United States. EAB larvae feed on ash phloem, cutting off the movement of resources within the tree and killing the tree in 4-5 years. EAB is able to attack and kill healthy trees in both natural and urban environments and is well suited for climatic conditions in the continental United States. As a result, EAB infestations have been detected in 24 States: Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is proposing to issue permits for the field release of a parasitic wasp, Spathius galinae, into the continental United States to reduce the severity of EAB infestations.

    On February 12, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 7827, Docket No. APHIS-2014-0094) a notice 1 in which we announced the availability, for public review and comment, of an environmental assessment (EA) that examined the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed release of S. galinae into the continental United States.

    1 To view the notice, the comments we received, the final EA, and the FONSI, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0094.

    We solicited comments on the EA for 30 days ending March 16, 2015. We received 10 comments by that date. The comments were from a government agency, State departments of agriculture, an organization of state plant regulatory agencies, and private citizens. Five commenters supported the action and five were opposed. The commenters who were opposed to the action raised issues related to the potential effects the release of S. galinae would have on human and environmental health and post-release monitoring methods. APHIS has provided responses to specific concerns raised by the comments in an appendix to the final EA.

    In this document, we are advising the public of our finding of no significant impact (FONSI) regarding the release of S. galinae into the continental United States for use as a biological control agent for EAB. The finding, which is based on the final EA, reflects our determination that release of this biological control agent will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

    The final EA and FONSI may be viewed on Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1). Copies of the EA and FONSI are also available for public inspection at USDA, Room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect copies are requested to call ahead to (202) 799-7039 to facilitate entry into the reading room. In addition, copies may be obtained by calling or writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    The EA and FONSI have been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b); and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

    Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of August 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20573 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board (Board) will meet in Golden Pond, Kentucky. The Board is authorized under section 450 of the Land Between The Lakes Protection Act of 1998 (Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the Board is to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on the means of promoting public participation for the land and resource management plan for the recreation area; and environmental education. Additional Board information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site: http://www.landbetweenthelakes.us/about/working-together/.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, September 24, 2015.

    All Board meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Land Between The Lakes Administration Building, 100 Van Morgran Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Land Between The Lakes Adminstrative Building. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rosemary Bray, Acting Board Coordinator, by phone at 270-924-2017 or via email at [email protected]

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is:

    1. Discuss Environmental Education; and

    2. Effectively communicate future land management plan activities.

    The meeting is open to the public. Board discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Board members. Written comments are invited and should be sent to Tina Tilley, Area Supervisor, Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 42211; and must be received by September 4, 2015, in order for copies to be provided to the members for this meeting. Board members will review written comments received, and at their request, oral clarification may be requested for a future meeting.

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

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Tina R. Tilley, Area Supervisor, Land Between The Lakes.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20570 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Boundary Description and Final Map for Grande Ronde Wild and Scenic River, Umatilla National Forest (OR and WA), Wallowa Whitman National Forest (WA) and Bureau of Land Management (WA). AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 3(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the USDA Forest Service, Washington Office, is transmitting the final boundary description and map of the Grande Ronde Wild and Scenic River to Congress.

    DATES:

    The boundaries and classification of the Grande Ronde Wild and Scenic River shall not become effective until ninety (90) days after they have been forwarded to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. In accordance with Section 3(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (82 Stat. 906 as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1274), the detailed boundary descriptions and final maps were forwarded on August 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents may be viewed at USDA Forest Service, Yates Federal Building, 201 14th Street SW., Washington, DC 20250; at the Supervisors Office of the Umatilla National Forest 72510 Coyote Road, Pendleton, OR 97801; at the Supervisors Office of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, 1550 Dewey Ave, Suite A, Baker City, OR 97814; and at the Bureau of Land Management Public Room at 1220 SW 3rd Ave, Portland, OR 97208.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information may be obtained by contacting the following office: Umatilla National Forest, 72510 Coyote Road, Pendleton, OR 97801; [email protected] Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of October 28, 1988 designated the Grande Ronde Wild and Scenic River, to be Administered by the Secretary of Agriculture. As specified by law, the boundary will not be effective until ninety (90) days after Congress receives the transmittal.

    Dated: August 11, 2015. James Peña, Regional Forester, Pacific Northwest Region.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20513 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE U.S. Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Automated Export System (AES) Program AGENCY:

    U.S. Census Bureau, 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, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, 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(s) and instructions should be directed to Kiesha Downs, Chief, Trade Regulations Branch, U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233-6700, (301) 763-7079, by fax (301) 763-8835 or by email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    The Automated Export System (AES) or successor system, is the instrument used for collecting export trade information. The data collected from this source is compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau and functions as the basis for the official U.S. export trade statistics. These statistics are used to determine the balance of international trade and are also designated for use as a principal economic indicator. Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), Chapter 9, Section 301 authorizes the Census Bureau to collect, compile, publish, and require the electronic filing of export data. Section 302 of Title 13, U.S.C., authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to publish regulations for the collection, publication, confidentiality, and disclosure of data collected pursuant to Chapter 9. Title 15, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 30, contains these regulatory provisions, and is known as the Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR). These data collected are used in the development of U.S. Government policies that affect the economy. These data also enable U.S. businesses to develop practical export marketing strategies as well as provide a means for the assessment of the impact of exports on the domestic economy. These data collected from the AES record are also used for export control purposes under Title 50, U.S.C., Export Administration Act, to detect and prevent the export of certain items by unauthorized parties or to unauthorized destinations or end users.

    The FTR was recently amended on February 9, 2015, through the issuance of a Final Rule, “Clarification on Uses of Electronic Export Information,” to provide clarity on the confidentiality provisions of the Electronic Export Information (EEI) and to facilitate the legitimate sharing of export data consistent with the goals for the International Trade Data System (ITDS). However, these changes did not impact the reporting burden imposed upon the export trade community.

    Currently, the Census Bureau is drafting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) to amend the FTR with new export reporting requirements. The proposed changes include the addition of two new data elements in the AES and clarification to existing reporting requirements. The proposed fields are not mandatory data elements and will only be required if a shipment meets a specific reporting requirement.

    The proposed data elements are an Original Internal Transaction Number (ITN) field and a New or Used Electronics indicator field. The Original ITN field will be an optional field that may be utilized if the filer has to create an additional AES record for a shipment that was previously filed. Adding the Original ITN field will assist the export trade community and enforcement agencies in identifying that a filer completed the mandatory filing requirements for the original shipment. In doing so, this may decrease the issuance of unnecessary penalties for these types of shipments. Because this data element is optional and only applies to a small percentage of shipments, it will have a minimal impact on response burden.

    The proposed New or Used Electronics indicator field will be used to improve information on trade flows and the disposal of used electronics. This information will be collected from the trade community for those who export electronics, in order to better understand the quantity and destinations of used electronics being exported. This field is being added to ensure compliance with Executive Order 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, signed on March 19, 2015. The goal of the Executive Order is to employ environmentally sound practices with respect to Federal agency's disposal of all excess or surplus electronic products, to reduce the likelihood of negative impacts to the health and environment in developing countries. Adding the New or Used Electronics indicator will not contribute significantly to response burden because it is optional and is a check box that only applies to shipments of electronics.

    The draft NPR also includes language to address the implementation of the ITDS in compliance with the Executive Order 13659, Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's Businesses. The ITDS is an electronic information exchange capability, or “single window,” through which businesses will transmit data required by participating agencies for the importation or exportation of cargo.

    Lastly, the draft NPR also includes language to clarify the reporting requirements for items such as Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), specific or general licenses and split shipments. Unlike other export licenses, general and specific licenses issued by OFAC do not require a specific value or quantity to be reported. Currently, the definition of export license in the FTR does not account for licenses that do not have a specific value or quantity and, as a result, we are adding language to clarify 15 CFR 30.2(a)(1)(iv). The Census Bureau is revising requirements for split shipments to incorporate new timeframes that were initially announced in FTR Letter #6, Notice of Regulatory Change for Split Shipments. In practice, the export trade community already adheres to these filing timeframes. These clarifications do not impose new reporting requirements because these shipments currently require filing in the AES.

    While the Census Bureau is proposing to add two additional data elements, the overall time per response is expected to remain at three minutes per AES filing. Data captured based on the new export reporting requirements are essential in compiling complete and accurate export statistics, as well as strengthening export controls.

    II. Method of Collection

    Except as noted in 15 CFR 30.2(a)(1)(iv), an electronic AES record is required for all export shipments valued more than $2,500 per Schedule B number from the United States, including Foreign Trade Zones located therein, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to foreign countries; for exports between the United States and Puerto Rico; and for exports to the U.S. Virgin Islands from the United States or Puerto Rico. Additionally, an AES record is required for the export of rough diamonds, used self-propelled vehicles and all exports requiring an export license from any other government agency or license exemption from the Department of State, regardless of value. The AES record is also required for exports with certain license exceptions from the Bureau of Industry and Security. The AES program is unique among Census Bureau statistical collections since respondents are not solicited for responses, as is the case with surveys. Filing export information via the AES is a mandatory process under Title 13, Chapter 9, U.S.C. The export trade community can access the AES via a free Internet-based system, AESDirect, or they can use software that connects directly with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) Automated Commercial Environment.

    For exports to Canada, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by CBP, Canada Border Services Agency, Statistics Canada, and the U.S. Census Bureau enables the United States to substitute Canadian import statistics for U.S. export statistics. Similarly, in accordance with the MOU, Canada substitutes U.S. import statistics for Canadian exports to the United States. This exchange of data eliminates the requirement for the export trade community to file the EEI with the U.S. Government for the majority of export shipments to Canada, thus resulting in the elimination of over eight million AES records annually. Export shipments to Canada of rough diamonds, used vehicles, or those that require a license must be filed through the AES. In addition, export shipments from the United States through Canada destined to a country other than Canada require an AES record.

    In most instances, a U.S. Principal Party in Interest or authorized agent must file EEI via the AES and annotate the commercial loading documents with the proof of filing citation prior to the export of a shipment. In instances where the AES filing is not required, the proper exemption legend must be noted on the commercial loading documents per 15 CFR 30.7.

    The AES enables the U.S. Government to significantly improve the quality, timeliness, and coverage of export statistics. Since July 1995, the Census Bureau and the CBP have utilized the AES to improve the reporting of export trade information, customer service, increase compliance with and enforcement of export laws, and provides paperless reports of export information. The AES also enables the U.S. Government to increase its ability to prevent the export of certain items by unauthorized parties, to unauthorized destinations and end users through electronic filing.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0152.

    Form Number(s): Automated Export System (AES) submissions.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Exporters, Forwarding agents, Export Carriers.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 304,223 filers who submit 15,218,820 shipments through the AES.

    Estimated Time per Response: 3 minutes for each AES submission.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 760,941.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $14,724,208.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, Chapter 9, Sections 301-307.

    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. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20537 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-54-2015] Notification of Proposed Production Activity, Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., Subzone 98A, (Passenger Motor Vehicles), Vance, Alabama

    Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. (MBUSI), operator of Subzone 98A, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Vance, Alabama. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on July 22, 2015.

    MBUSI already has authority to produce multipurpose/sport utility passenger motor vehicles. The current request would add a new finished product (passenger vehicle bodies) and foreign-status materials and components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt MBUSI from customs duty payments on the foreign status materials and components used in export production. On its domestic sales, MBUSI would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to passenger motor vehicles and related bodies (duty rate 2.5%) for the foreign status materials and components noted below and in the existing scope of authority. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.

    The materials and components sourced from abroad include: First-aid kits; adhesives; putties; caulks; lubricating oils; cleaning agents/polishing compounds; plastic protective sheets; paper shapes with adhesive backing; felt shapes; tufted floor coverings; adhesive cotton tape; steel tacks; aluminum fasteners (rivets, washers, nuts); wrenches (lug, socket); iron/steel rivets; windshield washer assemblies and related parts; electromechanical hydraulic units/appliances; power supplies; magnets; engine heaters; block heaters; telematics/media/GPS assemblies; microphone assemblies; speaker/amplifier assemblies; parts of speakers and microphones; radio/television transmission apparatus; cameras; radar devices; radio navigation equipment; radio remote controls; video monitors; vehicle angle modules; control modules; carrier plates; wheel speed sensors; radio interference filters; flat panel displays; checking instruments; electrical instruments; and, felt strips (HTSUS Subheading 5602.10) (duty rate ranges from free to 12%). Inputs included in textile category 223 (classified within HTSUS Subheading 5602.10) will be admitted to Subzone 98A under privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41), thereby precluding inverted tariff benefits on such items.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is September 29, 2015.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pierre Duy at [email protected] or (202) 482-1378.

    Dated: August 6, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20601 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-25-2015] Foreign-Trade Zone 122—Corpus Christi, TX; Authorization of Production Activity; M & G Resins, LLC (Polyethylene Terephthalate and Terephthalic Acid); Corpus Christi, TX

    On April 17, 2015, the Port of Corpus Christi Authority, grantee of FTZ 122, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on behalf of M & G Resins, LLC, within Subzone 122S, in Corpus Christi, Texas.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (80 FR 24231-24232, 4-30-2015). The FTZ Board has determined that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification is authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: August 17, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20602 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD513 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; response to comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS has incorporated public comments into revisions of the 2014 marine mammal stock assessment reports (SARs).

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic copies of SARs are available on the Internet as regional compilations and individual reports at the following address: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shannon Bettridge, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8402, [email protected]; Marcia Muto, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 206-526-4026, [email protected]; Peter Corkeron, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 508-495-2191, [email protected]; or Jim Carretta, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 858-546-7171, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Section 117 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) requires NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to prepare SARs for each stock of marine mammals occurring in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States. These reports contain information regarding the distribution and abundance of the stock, population growth rates and trends, the stock's Potential Biological Removal (PBR) level, estimates of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury from all sources, descriptions of the fisheries with which the stock interacts, and the status of the stock. Initial reports were completed in 1995.

    The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information is available, and at least once every three years for non-strategic stocks. NMFS and FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined. NMFS, in conjunction with the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific Scientific Review Groups (SRGs), reviewed the status of marine mammal stocks as required and revised reports in each of the three regions.

    As required by the MMPA, NMFS updated SARs for 2014, and the revised reports were made available for public review and comment for 90 days (80 FR 4881, January 29, 2015). NMFS received comments on the draft SARs and has revised the reports as necessary. This notice announces the availability of the final 2014 reports for the 88 stocks that are currently finalized. These reports are available on NMFS' Web site (see ADDRESSES).

    Comments and Responses

    NMFS received letters containing comments on the draft 2014 SARs from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), the Makah Tribe, seven non-governmental organizations (The Humane Society of the United States, Center for Biological Diversity, Oceana, Turtle Island Restoration Network, Hawaii Longline Association, Sustainable Fisheries Association, and the Maine Lobstermen's Association), and five individuals. Responses to substantive comments are below; comments on actions not related to the SARs are not included below. Comments suggesting editorial or minor clarifying changes were incorporated in the reports, but they are not included in the summary of comments and responses. In some cases, NMFS' responses state that comments would be considered or incorporated in future revisions of the SARs rather than being incorporated into the final 2014 SARs.

    Comments on National Issues

    Comment 1: The Humane Society of the United States and Center for Biological Diversity commented that NMFS failed to submit the draft 2014 SARs for public review in timely manner, thus rendering any comments on the draft 2014 SARs moot as the draft 2015 SARs had already been reviewed by the SRGs.

    Response: We acknowledge that the draft 2014 SARs were made available for public comment later than usual. While the SRG review of the draft 2015 SARs occurred prior to the 2014 reports being finalized, should any substantive comments on the draft 2014 reports have been received that would have led to changes to the draft 2015 reports and required SRG review, we would have sent the revisions to the SRGs for review prior to submitting the draft 2015 reports for public review.

    Comment 2: The Commission recommended that NMFS expand its efforts to understand and estimate the recovery rates of carcasses for marine mammal stocks (where the requisite data are available) and report those estimated rates and their associated uncertainties in future stock assessment reports.

    Response: We agree that there is a need to better understand and estimate undetected marine mammal mortalities and serious injuries. We are working on estimating carcass recovery rates for some species, and by extension, estimating the “cryptic mortality” rate for these species. When such rates are estimated and it is appropriate to do so, NMFS will report those estimated rates and their associated uncertainties in the SARs on a stock-by-stock basis.

    Comment 3: The Commission recommended that NMFS immediately publish new stock-assessment guidelines from the Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks (GAMMS) III recommendations that are not controversial or problematic.

    Response: We appreciate this recommendation and will endeavor to do so as promptly as feasible.

    Comment 4: The Commission recommended that NMFS develop guidelines for the development of new stock assessment methods that include review by appropriate experts not only on their scientific merit but also on their application to the management decision-making process. The Commission also recommended that NMFS develop a mechanism for the timely (i.e., faster than the GAMMS process), joint review and adoption of new methods by all six of the science centers.

    Response: NMFS thanks the Commission for this recommendation. We are investigating the most efficient process to incorporate new methodologies in a standardized way across regions where appropriate. NMFS is working to ensure that all centers have access to comparable analytical tools as new methods become available, and that these methodologies are being applied consistently across regions.

    Comment 5: The Commission recommended that when NMFS reviews and revises the policy on serious injury that it considers changing criterion L8 by deleting the provision for altering initial assessments about risks of separating mothers and calves pending better information on the length of calf dependence and in the interim refrain from making alterations based on subsequent sightings.

    Response: NMFS appreciates this recommendation and will consider it when reviewing and revising the Policy and Procedure for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals. Each injury event is carefully evaluated and all available information used to make the best judgment of prognosis under the serious injury definition of “likely to die” being equal to or greater than a 50 percent. Our intention is to provide the most accurate injury outcome results given the information available. A whale that has sustained a serious injury and is re-sighted many months later with the injury resolving and in relatively good health compared to non-injured conspecifics is considered not likely to die due to that injury and is no longer counted against PBR as a removal from the population. In the rare case of subsequent sightings indicating deterioration of health that can be attributed to the injury, the whale would again be considered seriously injured and counted against PBR.

    Comments on Atlantic Regional Reports

    Comment 6: To clarify the information presented in the Atlantic stock assessment reports, the Commission recommended that NMFS replace the term “Fate” as a column header in Table 2 with the term “Injury Determination” and limit the categories used under that heading to the following three: “Mortality” (when the individual is known to have died), “Serious injury,” or “Prorated serious injury” as appropriate based on the large whale injury determination categories.

    Response: NMFS will rename the “Fate” column to “Injury Determination” and change the “unknown” category to “prorated injury” in the Atlantic reports. We would rather not use the phrase “prorated serious injury” because in such cases it not known whether the injury is serious or not.

    Comment 7: The Commission suggests that three serious injuries to North Atlantic right whales (#1151, #4160, and #3308) should be added to Table 2 in the SAR.

    Response: The following is a summary statement about each case. Cases were reviewed by NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) staff and determinations made by NEFSC staff were later reviewed by experienced staff at all other Fisheries Science Centers, per the Policy and Procedure for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals.

    • 08/09/09-#1151 was badly entangled but freed with her condition subsequently deteriorating. Re-sightings confirmed the whale was gear free and indicate both mom and calf healthy. This whale was categorized L2 but assigned a serious injury value of 0 due to disentanglement and evident healing.

    • 07/19/11-#4160, Calf of #2660—Entanglement Scarred Calf with significant cuts and wounds seen off Provincetown. The whale was re-sighted healthy in 2014. The last SAR listed this whale with a serious injury value as 1.0, but that was changed to 0 in the 2014 report based on the healthy re-sight.

    • 7/20/12-#3308—Entanglement scarred (but gear free) whale found in Gulf of Maine with extensive wounds whose condition subsequently declined in 2013 and 2014. Re-sights showed some health decline but overall condition was fair and injuries healing. This whale was categorized as L10 but assigned a serious injury value of 0 due to evident healing.

    Comment 8: The Maine Lobstermen Association (MLA) recommended that the “Population Size” section of the North Atlantic right whale SAR should have a more in-depth discussion of recent changes in right whale distribution over the last five years, during which time fewer are being seen in their known historic habitats. The comment stated that since the minimum population estimate (NMIN) for right whales is based only on those whales observed in surveys in combination with photo-identification of whales, if they are not seen, they are not counted. The MLA fears that as the population continues its positive growth trend, the population estimate could actually decrease because the whales are no longer frequenting the same habitats, which would impact PBR.

    Response: This comment may be valid in future SARs; however, the data used in this assessment show no appreciable decline in capture probability during the years succeeding the reference year. Because it is the probability of seeing an individual at least once that determines the robustness of NMIN when calculated as Minimum Number Alive, there has been no discernible impact on that estimate due to changes in right whale residence times in surveyed habitats. NMFS closely monitors mean group-wise capture probabilities using a mark recapture (MRR) statistical model. At the point in time that population estimation via MRR offers a more robust estimate of NMIN than does Minimum Number Alive, that new estimate can then be vetted and used in the SAR.

    Comment 9: The MLA recommended that the minimum population estimate for the North Atlantic right whale should be revised to 510 whales, based on the best available science from the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2014 Annual Report Card.

    Response: The MMPA requires that NMFS report a minimum abundance estimate that provides reasonable assurance that the stock size is equal to or greater than the estimate. The estimates provided by the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium do not meet that standard in that they count whales that are likely to be dead (what the Consortium calls “presumed alive”—those whales not seen for one to five consecutive years). Including those whales in an NMIN for the SAR would increase the likelihood that the estimate is biased high, which fails to meet the mandate of MMPA. Note also that the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium's 2014 Annual Report Card includes the statement that their number “should not be considered a ‘population estimate.’ ”

    Comment 10: The MLA recommended that the “Current Population Trend” section of the SAR for the North Atlantic right whale should be revised to reflect that the population has been increasing over the past decade.

    Response: The SAR provides a graph that depicts the population increase over a 12-year period and it includes in the text an estimate of growth during that time frame. The current wording in the “Current Population Trend” section is “Examination of the minimum number alive population index calculated from the individual sightings database, as it existed on 25 October 2013, for the years 1990-2011 (Figure 1) suggests a positive and slowly accelerating trend in population size. These data reveal a significant increase in the number of catalogued whales with a geometric mean growth rate for the period of 2.8 percent.” This text reflects that the population has been increasing over the past decade.

    Comment 11: The MLA recommended that the “Current and Maximum Net Productivity Rates” section of the North Atlantic right whale SAR be revised to include a more recent analysis of the pool of reproductive females, mean calving intervals, and age structure of the population.

    Response: NMFS agrees that providing a demographically-based productivity value in the SAR would be slightly more informative than the present SAR's accounting of the number of detected calves. NMFS will revise the section in future years by providing a per capita production value. Because many whales are of unknown age, the development of detailed information on age structure will require vetting estimates through a peer review process that cannot be organized in the short term, but will be included in the next SAR feasible. The same is true for calving interval.

    Comment 12: The MLA recommended that the PBR for the North Atlantic Right Whale should be revised to 1.02, using 510 as the minimum population size for the population as referenced above.

    Response: See response to comment 9.

    Comment 13: The MLA recommended that the North Atlantic right whale SAR include a short explanation of the methodology used to make the assignment for serious injury and mortality rates in U.S. versus Canadian waters. The comment states that the SAR should not include 13.75 reported fisheries entanglements as being “from U.S. waters,” as the origin of the gear in these cases is unknown. The location of where the entanglement was first observed does not indicate the origin of the gear, so this extrapolation cannot be made.

    Response: The SAR text will be revised to read Of the 13.75 reported fisheries entanglements first reported in U.S. waters during this five-year time period . . .” Further details on assigning entanglements to countries can be found in Cole T.V.N., and Henry A.G. (2013) Serious injury determinations for baleen whale stocks along the Gulf of Mexico, United States East Coast and Atlantic Canadian Provinces, 2007-2011. Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 13-24; 14p. http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1324/crd1324.pdf.

    Comment 14: The MLA recommended that the North Atlantic right whale SAR be revised to include data from the last ten years to characterize the overall impacts of serious injury and mortality on the North Atlantic right whale population size.

    Response: NMFS is presently working on a more robust depiction of the impact of entanglement-related serious injury and mortality on the right whale population, which should be available in subsequent SARs (assuming the procedures receive a favorable peer review, possibly beginning with the next SAR).

    Comment 15: The MLA recommended that the North Atlantic right whale SAR note that it is unknown whether any of U.S. fisheries entanglements relate to the efficacy of the sinking line rule.

    Response: At this point, too little time as passed to make any statements relative to entanglement rates and the sinking ground rule.

    Comment 16: The MLA recommended that the North Atlantic right whale SAR include the value of Optimal Sustainable Population (OSP) for right whales, as well as the value of the size of the stock to substantiate the statement that the “size of the stock is extremely low relative to OSP in the US Atlantic EEZ.”

    Response: NMFS has provided a graph that depicts North Atlantic right whale population growth during 1990-2011. That graph indicates that population growth is accelerating and has not passed an inflection point. An inflection point would suggest that the population could be reaching Maximum Net Productivity Level (MNPL). Because the population appears to be at levels clearly lower than MNPL it is, by mathematical definition, less than OSP. Until population growth begins to decelerate—due to density dependence, not deaths caused by human activities—then it would be unwise to attempt to fit a growth curve and estimate OSP from the population data.

    Comment 17: The MLA recommended that in the North Atlantic right whale SAR NMFS revise the sentence “the North Atlantic right whale is considered one of the most critically endangered populations of large whales in the world.” The comment states that this conclusion is based on a 1999 report that estimates the population of right whales to be 295 animals, which is substantially lower than the current estimate of 510 whales. The comment states that therefore, more recent data should be used to substantiate such a statement.

    Response: NMFS' comment regarding the critically endangered status of North Atlantic right whale is still true. There are likely only four large whale stocks in more dire straits than the North Atlantic right whale: Western gray whales, Gulf of Mexico Brydes whales, Arabian humpback whales, and North Pacific right whales.

    Comment 18: Two individuals noted data deficiencies in the stock assessment reports for North Atlantic gray seals and recommended that NMFS provide current abundance and trend estimates.

    Response: NMFS gray seal research has been constrained by lack of resources allocated specifically to seal work. Aerial surveys of index sites have occurred sporadically over the past decade, when resources allowed. Images from those surveys are being processed to inform trend estimates for seals in U.S. waters, and should provide a minimum estimate of abundance. NMFS is working with collaborators (at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Duke University, particularly) to develop cost-effective tools to better survey seals along the New England coast. In addition, NMFS is actively pursuing additional resources and expanding partnerships with other seal research groups to improve and enhance data collection and analytical methods.

    Comments on Pacific Regional Reports

    Comment 19: The Commission recommended that NMFS conduct further research on the ecological relationship between Hawaiian monk seals and two deep-water fish species also targeted by the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) bottomfish handline fishery and explicitly incorporate the requirements of the MHI monk seal population into future stock assessments of the two fish species in question.

    Response: The NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) is conducting ongoing research on the habitat use and diet of MHI monk seals using a variety of tools, including fatty acid analysis, seal-mounted video cameras and a variety of telemetry devices. Information about the presence, prevalence, and importance of any commercially fished bottomfish species in the monk seal diet is currently too uncertain to determine the requirements of the MHI monk seal population. This issue is a high priority of MHI monk seal research and the Hawaiian Monk Seal Research Program is working with the State of Hawaii and PIFSC Fisheries Research and Monitoring Division to better understand and quantify direct and ecological (or indirect) interactions between monk seals and the bottomfish fishery.

    Comment 20: The Commission recommended that NMFS use the default RMAX for cetaceans (four percent) for the Eastern North Pacific Southern Resident stock of killer whales, until such time that the research from which the specific RMAX estimate for this stock was derived has been peer reviewed and published.

    Response: There are published estimates of RMAX for other resident killer whales in the region that can be used as a reasonable substitute for the default RMAX of four percent. Matkin et al. (2014) provides an RMAX estimate of 3.5 percent for southern Alaska resident killer whales, which is applied to southern resident killer whales. This represents a better estimate than the default maximum, while also providing a lower, and hence, more conservative estimate of PBR than that calculated using the default RMAX of four percent. In context, the difference between PBR calculated using the default RMAX of four percent (PBR = 0.16 animals) and the published estimate of 3.5 percent for southern Alaska resident killer whales (PBR = 0.14 animals) is negligible.

    Comment 21: The Turtle Island Restoration Network recommended that NMFS calculate the PBR for the CA/OR/WA stock of sperm whale using the full range of abundance estimates available—rather than only one study by Moore and Barlow (2014)—and the species-specific growth rate estimates from the scientific literature. They stated that this will result in a PBR calculation of 0.4, rather than the current estimate of 2.7 calculated in the SAR. The comment cites Whitehead (2002), IWC (1982), and Moore and Barlow (2014), which estimate annual population growth rates ranging from 0.6 to 1.5 percent.

    Response: Abundance estimates from the Moore and Barlow (2014) study were used, rather than prior published estimates, because these newer estimates are considered to represent the best available science, based on the use improved statistical methodology that has been vetted through multiple peer-reviewed journal publications (Moore and Barlow 2011, 2013, and 2014), and based on revised estimates of g(0) (from Barlow 2015). The analytical method employed makes use of all available survey data dating back to 1991 to estimate abundance in each year, rather than basing each estimate solely on information contained within an individual survey. As such, the annual estimates are substantially more stable through time (not less, counter to Turtle Island Restoration Network's suggestion). In contrast, sperm whale estimates based only on data from a particular survey are highly imprecise estimates due to small within-year sample sizes. The strong increase in mean estimated abundance compared to previously published estimates is mostly due to the use of new g(0) estimates (from Barlow 2015), not due to revised statistical methodology. General imprecision in the estimates for many of the model parameters is a problem of limited information in the data, not of the method. The minimum (20th percentile) abundance estimate accounts explicitly for these uncertainties. Substantial estimated levels of process variance are not surprising given that the population is highly mobile and wide-ranging (i.e., the study area is not closed). The current PBR estimates do not make use of estimates older than eight years. Rather, the current PBR estimate is based on a current abundance estimate, which is appropriately informed by data spanning two decades. The default maximum population growth rate of four percent for cetaceans is used in the calculation of PBR for this stock. There are no reliable empirical estimates of maximum potential population growth rates for sperm whales. The values used by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) (1982) were based on uncertain estimates of life history parameters now considered to have been pessimistic (Whitehead 2002). Potential growth estimates proposed by Whitehead (2002) were based on a survival schedule for killer whales, while those of Chiquet et al. (2013) were based on assumed ranges for annual survival. Distributions for the growth rate estimates by Chiquet et al. were centered on approximately zero percent per year with half of the distribution being negative. Such results suggest consideration of implausible life table schedules. Reproductive rate estimates for sperm whales used in these and other previous models may also be pessimistic in that the data come from heavily exploited populations rather than maximally growing ones.

    Comment 22: Oceana recommended NMFS update the estimates of fishing-induced mortality and serious injury (M/SI) for both humpback and gray whales, based on: (1) New data through 2014 on whale entanglements, which reflect substantially higher rates than reported in the 2008-2012 period; and (2) revising the mortality and serious injury estimates to reflect the best available scientific estimate of the number of M/SI from entanglements that go unreported.

    Response: The SARs incorporate serious injury determinations that have been vetted through the Procedure for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals and reviewed by the SRGs. As a result of the reporting and revision process, data used for these determinations typically lag two years behind the year of the SAR; in this case, the 2014 SARs include mortality and serious injury estimates for the 2008-2012 period.

    NMFS acknowledges in the SARs that observed whale entanglements represent underestimates, because the number of undetected cases is unknown. The NMFS report cited by the commenter (Saez et al. 2013) refers to an unpublished estimate for Gulf of Maine humpback whales indicating that approximately ten percent of entanglements were documented (Robbins and Mattila 2004). The Robbins and Mattila (2004) report is not directly applicable to large whale entanglements on the U.S. west coast, as fishery characteristics and spatial overlap with large whales are different in each region. NMFS will continue to pursue the development of methods that would enable the accurate correction for underestimating entanglement impacts on large whales.

    Comment 23: Oceana recommended that NMFS assess how the decreased availability of humpback whale prey may be affecting the stock, and cited a Hillet al. (2015) presentation related to Pacific sardine and anchovy fisheries.

    Response: NMFS assumes this comment was directed at the SAR for the CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whales, which was not updated in 2014. We appreciate the comment and will consider it when the SAR is next updated.

    Comment 24: The Makah Tribe recommended that NMFS note in the SAR for Western North Pacific (WNP) gray whales that the newly seen non-calves may be immigrants to the Sakhalin feeding aggregation.

    Response: Text in the SAR for WNP gray whales has been revised to state that: “While a few previously unidentified non-calves are identified annually, a recent population assessment using photo-identification data from 1994 to 2011 fitted to an individually-based model found that whales feeding off Sakhalin Island have been demographically self-contained, at least in recent years, as new recruitment to the population is almost exclusively a result of calves born to mothers from within the group (Cooke et al. 2013).”

    Comment 25: The Makah Tribe questioned the assertion that the WNP stock of gray whales is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act and further recommended that in the absence of scientific evidence for rejecting hypotheses 1 through 6 and adopting hypothesis 7 from Bickham et al. (2014) [a list of hypotheses regarding the population biology of North Pacific gray whales], NMFS alter the SAR for WNP gray whales in the following ways:

    (1) Remove the statements in the draft SAR asserting that the Sakhalin feeding aggregation is considered “endangered” under the ESA and “strategic and depleted” under the MMPA;

    (2) state instead that the Sakhalin feeding aggregation does not have a formal status under the MMPA, although the population size has been increasing for the last ten years;

    (3) change the title of the draft SAR to “GRAY WHALE (Eschrichtius robustus): Sakhalin Feeding Aggregation” to help eliminate confusion between the whales identified as a stock in the SAR and the WNP stock listed as endangered under the ESA; and

    (4) re-calculate the Sakhalin feeding aggregation's PBR based on a recovery factor of 0.5 (the default factor for a stock of unknown status).

    Response: In 2012, a NMFS Task Force (TF) was established to assess stock structure of gray whales in the North Pacific. With respect to gray whales in the western North Pacific, the primary objective of the TF was to determine if currently available data supported the recognition of gray whales in the WNP as a “population stock” under the guidance provided in the MMPA and the GAMMS (Weller et al. 2013). After completion of their review, the TF provided unambiguous advice that WNP gray whales should be “recognized as a population stock pursuant to the GAMMS guidelines and the MMPA” (Weller et al. 2013). The TF did not explicitly consider how the available data fit in with the hypotheses presented in Bickham et al. (2014). However, the datasets examined by the TF and by Bickham et al. (2014) were very similar, and both included a review of the results of genetic analyses of biopsies collected from whales feeding off Sakhalin as well as of information on the movements of some whales between Sakhalin Island, Russia and the eastern North Pacific.

    In the TF's consideration of whether gray whales in the WNP represent a population stock under the MMPA, most of the data reviewed were collected from the gray whales off Sakhalin Island, Russia. Thus the recognition of a western North Pacific stock of gray whales that includes those animals that feed off Sakhalin is consistent with the TF's advice. Similarly, the listing of western gray whales as “Endangered” under the ESA and designation as “Critically Endangered” by the IUCN were largely based on data collected from the gray whales that feed off Sakhalin. The recent data on movements of gray whales between the eastern and western North Pacific were not available when these whales were listed under the ESA and would be considered in any future reviews of these populations. Until such reviews are conducted, however, the continued recognition of the gray whales that feed off Sakhalin as “Endangered” under the ESA is consistent with the data used to inform these listings.

    As outlined in the report of the IWC Scientific Committee (SC) (2015), additional analysis and modeling of gray whale range-wide population structure and status has been underway since 2014 and will be the topic of further review of a third IWC inter-sessional workshop in April 2016. This report states the following: In order to successfully complete modeling efforts required for the workshop, data need to be compiled on: (1) Updated abundance estimates and variance and covariance matrices for feeding grounds, (2) complete matching of gray whales photographed south of Sakhalin Island along the coast of Asia, (3) fishing effort along the U.S. and Canadian west coast to determine trends by fishery type (e.g. pots, gillnets, set nets, etc.), and (4) further analyses to narrow the bounds on the stock composition of whales observed at Sakhalin Island. Modelling efforts will include (1) update modelling framework with revised abundance estimates and mixing matrices, (2) conduct further sensitivity examination to pre-specified parameter values, (3) incorporate available data on fishing effort for the west coast of the United States, (4) evaluate parameter uncertainty using bootstrapping, and (5) integrate the gray whale and PCFG strike limit algorithms (SLA) into the modelling framework.

    Comment 26: The Makah Tribe recommended that the SAR for WNP gray whales should discuss the available data regarding whales seen feeding off of both Sakhalin and Kamchatka, and the implications of this information for the conclusions and analysis in the SAR, including the identification of a separate WNP stock and the abundance estimate for this stock.

    Response: A description of information regarding whales off Kamchatka is provided in the Stock Definition and Geographic Range section as well as the Population Size section of the report. Division of nearshore vs. offshore feeding areas off Sakhalin is not provided because both areas are considered to be part of the overall Sakhalin feeding area and the intra-seasonal interchange of whales between the two sites is extensive. See response to Comment 25 regarding the IWC's upcoming range-wide population structure and status workshop.

    Comment 27: The Makah Tribe recommended that NMFS explain the basis of using a 0.575 multiplier in the PBR calculation for WNP gray whales.

    Response: Moore and Weller (2013) evaluated the risk that a proposed Makah hunt of Eastern North Pacific (ENP) gray whales posed to WNP gray whales and stated that “The proportion of the WNP population that migrates along the North American coast is unknown but based on recent photo-identification, telemetry, and genetic matches of WNP whales to Eastern North Pacific (ENP) areas, we estimate the value to be at least 0.15, based on there being 23 known matches out of an estimated population size of 155 (Mate et al., 2011; IWC, 2012; Urbán et al., 2012; Weller et al. 2012).” The upper limit of this estimate is 1.0, or a precautionary value that represents the entire WNP population. The 0.575 multiplier represents the estimated proportion of the WNP population that utilizes U.S. EEZ waters and represents the mean value of a uniform distribution ranging from 0.15 to 1.0 that was used in risk models. NMFS has clarified the origin of the 0.575 multiplier in the final SAR.

    Comment 28: The Makah Tribe recommended that NMFS update the SAR and PBR calculation for WNP gray whales to include information from Cooke (2015), which concludes that the proportion of gray whales feeding off Sakhalin that utilize wintering grounds off the coast of Asia is no greater than 63 percent. The comment stated that as a result, the proportion of such whales that migrate to North America would be between 0.37 and 1.0.

    Response: At the IWC SC inter-sessional workshop on gray whale population structure held in April 2015, a number of recommendations were made for work to be undertaken that would narrow the confidence range for this estimate of 63 percent reported in Cooke et al. (2015). Revision of this work will be reviewed at the next IWC inter-sessional workshop on gray whales (tentatively scheduled for April 2016).

    Comment 29: The Makah Tribe recommended that NMFS update the SAR for the Sakhalin population of WNP gray whales to include the new abundance estimate from the 14th IUCN Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel's meeting's Second Rangewide Workshop (IUCN 2014), which concluded that as of 2013, the population contained 38 mature females (SE = ±2) growing at an average rate of 2.5 percent (SE = ± 0.5 percent) over the previous 10 years, and that the best estimate of the age 1-plus population in 2013 was 176 (SE = ± 2). The comment stated that the estimate currently listed in the SAR is biased low because it only accounts for whales observed at Sakhalin Island, and that the SAR should include and utilize this new abundance estimate (IUCN 2014), including whales sighted in Kamchatka, in the PBR calculation.

    Response: While it is true that an analysis of the data from the parallel photo-ID team of the Vladivostok Institute of Marine Biology (IBM) has been conducted, including incorporation of their photo-ID data from Kamchatka, the reliability of these datasets is unclear. That is, analysis of the IBM photo-ID data from Sakhalin resulted in a “less optimistic population projection” as compared to the Russia-United States data, “with a high probability of future decline.” Until the reasons for the apparent difference in results from the two datasets have been elucidated, this difference should be treated as a potential caveat to the assessment results presented in Cooke et al. (2013). Therefore, we have reported numbers from only the Russia-United States data which at this time represent the best available science.

    Comment 30: The Makah Tribe recommended that the SAR for the ENP gray whale, the recovery factor for the Pacific Coast Feeding Group should be 0.75 instead of 0.5. The comment stated that in the 2013 SAR, NMFS agreed to consider this change in the 2014 SAR. The Makah Tribe believe that a recovery factor of 0.75 is consistent with the best available science regarding the PCFG, the guidelines for preparing marine mammal stock assessments, the available precedent, and NMFS' February 27, 2014 analysis.

    Response: NMFS considered alternatives to the recovery factor of 0.5 in consultation with the Pacific Scientific Review Group (PSRG) in 2014, including a proposal to increase the recovery factor to 0.75. The PSRG did not support the change in recovery factor and NMFS has retained the default factor of 0.5.

    Comment 31: The Hawaii Longline Association (HLA) recommended that NMFS streamline the SAR administrative process to be more timely, because at any given time “there are presently three versions of the False Killer Whale (FKW) SAR available to the public, any one of which might be construed by the public to be “current”: (i) The Final 2013 SAR; (ii) the Draft 2014 SAR (dated October 2014), presently open for public comment; and (iii) the Draft 2015 SAR (dated February 2015).”

    Response: While we understand the potential for confusion, at any given time the most recent “final” SARs should be considered the “current” version of the reports. The draft reports are reviewed by the Scientific Review Groups and then by the public; they are not considered “final” until the agency has addressed comments and issued a notice of availability of final reports. In this case, the draft 2014 reports were made available for public comment from January 29, 2015 through April 29, 2015; during that time, the final 2013 SARs were the most current final versions, and the draft 2015 reports were made available to the Scientific Review Groups for review but not yet available to the general public (and therefore should not have caused any confusion for the public). With this Federal Register notice, NMFS is finalizing the 2014 SARs and the 2014 reports should be construed as the “current” assessment reports. The draft 2015 SARs are forthcoming and will be made available for public comment for 90 days, as directed by the statute.

    Comment 32: The HLA recommended that the draft SAR be revised to reflect the current FKW management framework. The comment states that “the Draft 2014 SAR will effectively report information in 2015 that is current only through the end of 2012. However, the FKW Take Reduction Plan (TRP) regulations became effective in 2013 and a full two years of data gathered under the significantly new regulatory framework established by the TRP regulations are available. None of this (sic) data will be reported in the final SAR and, as a result, the Draft 2014 SAR is entirely irrelevant to the management of the Hawaii longline fisheries because it is based upon data gathered under a very different management framework.”

    Response: The timelines associated with the drafting of SARs unfortunately require some lag in the use of various datasets. The SAR is prepared early in the calendar year, at which time the previous year's Observer Program data are not yet available for use in estimating bycatch. In the case of the 2014 SAR, bycatch estimates were available only through 2012 at the time the SAR was reviewed by the Pacific Scientific Review Group.

    Comment 33: The HLA requested that NMFS eliminate the five-year look-back period for the FKW SAR. The comment states “data reported in the FKW SAR should reflect the data gathered after the implementation of the TRP regulations to accurately measure the effects of the Hawaii longline fisheries on FKW stocks.”

    Response: As already indicated, the draft 2014 SAR uses data through 2012. The TRP regulations did not go into effect until early 2013, such that no data after the period of TRP implementation are included. It is appropriate to continue the 5-year look back for data collected prior to the TRP. When 2013 bycatch data are available, NMFS will evaluate whether it is appropriate to continue use of the five-year look-back in the bycatch estimates.

    Comment 34: The HLA recommended that the draft SAR for the Hawaii pelagic FKW stock should expressly recognize the discrepancy between the reported M/SI rate for the deep-set fishery and the positive population trend for the stock, and requests that NMFS revisit the manner in which it determines M/SI for FKW interactions. The comment states “For a decade, NMFS has reported a M/SI rate for the deep-set fishery that far exceeds PBR for the Hawaii pelagic FKW stock . . . However, the best available information suggests that the number of FKWs in the Hawaii EEZ has not declined during the same time that the supposedly unsustainable M/SI rate was occurring.”

    Response: This comment has been addressed previously (see 78 FR 19446, April 1, 2013, comments 45 and 51; 79 FR 49053, August 18, 2014, comment 26). The comment and included footnote continue to suggest that the pelagic stock of FKWs is increasing or stable since 2002 and, as such, deep-set fishery takes are not of concern, although serious injury and mortality have been above PBR for more than a decade. The commenter attributes this persistence of FKWs despite high levels of fishery mortality to NMFS' “improper” assessment of the severity of injuries resulting from fisheries interactions, “improper” assessment of population abundance and trend, or both. Assessment of injury severity under the NMFS Policy and Procedure for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals has been discussed in numerous previous comment responses, and is based on the best available science on whether a cetacean is likely to survive a particular type of injury. Further study of FKWs would certainly better inform the assigned outcomes, but until better data become available, the standard established in the NMFS 2012 Policy and Procedure for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals will stand.

    The referenced 2002 and 2010 survey abundance estimates are not comparable in their published form, as the methodology for accurately enumerating FKW groups changed between surveys, significantly increasing the average group size of false killer whales and therefore, the resulting abundance estimate. Further, because the entire stock range of pelagic FKWs is unknown, but certainly extends beyond the Hawaii EEZ, the available abundance estimates do not reflect true population size. A robust assessment of population trend would require assessment of environmental variables that influence FKW distribution and the proportion of the population represented within the survey area during each survey period. Finally, many years of unsustainable take does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the population is declining. PBR was designed to provide a benchmark, in the face of great uncertainty about marine mammal populations, below which human-caused mortalities would not reduce the population beyond its OSP, which is defined as the abundance where there is “the greatest net annual increment in population numbers or biomass resulting from additions to the population due to reproduction and/or growth less losses due to natural mortality.” The benchmark does not consider whether a population is declining, as this is very hard to prove, particularly for population abundance estimates with low precision.

    Comment 35: The HLA recommended that NMFS produce a publicly available report that documents further analysis of the 2010 Hawaiian Islands Cetacean and Ecosystem Assessment Survey data for pelagic FKWs. The comment states that otherwise, NMFS should remove the comment from the draft 2014 SAR that states that there was “some suggestion” of “attractive movement” of FKWs in the 2010 survey. The comment states that there is no citation to support this statement.

    Response: Citation to Bradford et al. (2014) has been added to the SAR within the sentence: “There is some suggestion of such attractive movement within the acoustic data, though the extent of any bias created by this movement is unknown.” Reports of responsive movement and its potential impact on the estimates is discussed within the Bradford et al. (2014) peer-reviewed publication.

    Comment 36: The HLA recommended that the SAR for the pelagic stock of FKWs use a recovery factor greater than 0.5 (i.e., closer to 1.0 than to 0.5). The comment stated that the pelagic stock is not depleted or threatened, nor is its status unknown, and therefore the draft SAR should not assign it a recovery factor of 0.5.

    Response: The current status of pelagic FKWs is unknown. This population may be depleted given fishing pressures within and outside of the EEZ over several decades. The status of Hawaii pelagic FKWs is considered unknown because there are no trend data available to evaluate whether the population is increasing, stable, or declining. Designation of a stock as “depleted” requires specific analysis of population trend which is not currently possible with the available data. The recovery factor for Hawaii pelagic FKWs will remain 0.5, as indicated, for a stock of unknown status with a coefficient of variation of the mortality and serious injury estimate ≤0.30, as directed by the GAMMS.

    Comment 37: The HLA recommended that the 2014 draft SAR for the insular stock of FKW be revised to report the “correct” range, M/SI level, and status (i.e., status should be non-strategic). The comment stated that “. . . the Draft 2015 SAR appropriately proposes to modify the range of the insular stock. . . the Draft 2014 SAR continues to present the inaccurately assumed insular stock range, which will effectively be reported as the “best available science” through most of 2016. This inaccuracy is very significant. The draft 2014 SAR reports an M/SI rate of 0.9, which is greater than the PBR of 0.3. In contrast, if the correct insular stock range were used, then the M/SI rate should be 0.0.”

    Response: NMFS has not completed the draft 2015 SARs, nor have we made them available for public notice and comment and, therefore, we cannot make this comparison.

    Comment 38: The HLA recommended that the language of the draft SAR be revised to remove all implied allegations that the Hawaii-based longline fisheries are responsible for dorsal fin disfigurements observed in Insular Stock animals. The comment states that these fisheries have been excluded from nearshore fishing grounds for several years.

    Response: The sentence has been reworded to be less explicit about any specific type of fishery. It now reads: “The commercial or recreational hook-and-line fishery or fisheries responsible for these injuries is/are unknown.”

    Comment 39: The HLA recommended that NMFS acknowledge in the SAR for the insular stock of FKW that the population has maintained a stable abundance since 2000, as maintained by the best available information, and asserted that the assumption that the insular stock has declined is speculative.

    Response: The SAR cites the most recent Status Review for the MHI insular stock of FKW. Within that Review, a Population Viability Analysis was conducted, including 45 different scenarios incorporating various uncertainties in anthropogenic and natural mortality, the impact of allee and other small population size effects, and uncertainty around various measures of abundance. All but one model indicated the population has undergone decline. The SAR acknowledges that some two-stage models suggest a lower rate of decline since 2000. The Status Review does not consider the two-stage models as any more appropriate than the single growth rate models. When new data become available to support an updated analysis of trend in the MHI insular stock, NMFS will update the assessment of population status accordingly.

    Comment 40: The HLA recommended that NMFS alter the proration assumptions used in the draft SAR for FKW interactions, as they do not reflect the best available information. The comment stated: “NMFS categorizes certain interactions as FKW interactions when, in fact, no data exist from which NMFS can reliably determine whether the interactions in question involved FKWs . . . First, NMFS assigns a proportion of FKW interactions for which no injury determination has been made as M/SI interactions that ultimately count against the fisheries. Second, NMFS assigns a proportion of “blackfish” interactions (i.e., interactions with unidentified cetaceans) as FKW interactions that also count against the fisheries. Neither of these methods is reasonable or lawful.”

    Response: FKW bycatch proration reflects the best available information on the species and injury status of cetaceans observed hooked or entangled in the longline fishery. First, NMFS prorates injuries with a status of `cannot be determined' according to the ratio of known serious and non-serious injuries. To treat all `cannot be determined' cases as non-serious would be a clear under-representation of total M/SI within the fishery. This proration supported within GAMMS, judged by NMFS, and supported by external peer-review, as the best approach for dealing appropriately accounting for injuries whose injury status cannot be determined based on the information provided by the observer. Second, when a species code of “unidentified blackfish” has been assigned to an interaction by the Pacific Islands Regional Office Observer Program, the Program has determined that the species identity is known to be either FKW or short-finned pilot whale. This species assignment is much more specific than “unidentified cetacean.” Because the species identity is known within two possible candidates, NMFS has used all other interactions with those two species to develop a proration model for assigning these blackfish interactions to be false killer whales or short-finned pilot whales. All available interaction data inform the proration scheme. Cetacean interaction with a species identity of “unidentified cetacean” are not currently prorated to any specific species and are therefore not included in any assessment of M/SI.

    Comment 41: The HLA recommended that NMFS further consider its delineation of a Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) stock of FKWs. HLA's comment indicates that HLA remains “highly skeptical of NMFS's ability to so quickly and conclusively `confirm' that NWHI whales are a distinct stock separate from the Insular Stock and the Pelagic Stock.” HLA believes that “NMFS's rush to judgment regarding the existence of this new `stock' appears to reflect an aversion to attributing these additional 552 whales to the Insular Stock or to the Pelagic Stock.”

    Response: NMFS disagrees with the comment: The separation of the NWHI stock and the Hawaii insular and pelagic stocks is sound and based on multiple lines of evidence including genetic analyses indicating significant differentiation in both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA, photo-ID indicating separation from the tight social network of the Main Hawaiian Islands animals, and satellite telemetry data suggesting island and atoll association within the NWHI. The data on FKW stock structure, including the new NWHI stock, have been evaluated both for demographic independence, the benchmark for separation under the MMPA, and for evolutionary separation, the more stringent standard for separation under the ESA.

    Comment 42: The HLA recommended that the draft 2014 SAR for the NWHI stock of FKWs be revised to state that the M/SI rate for the NWHI Stock is zero. The comment stated, “The Hawaii longline fisheries are excluded from fishing within the range of the NWHI Stock and, moreover, there has never been a reported interaction between either of the Hawaii longline fisheries and the NWHI Stock.”

    Response: The Hawaii longline fishery is not excluded from fishing within the range of the NWHI stock of FKWs. The range of the NWHI stock extends outside of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (where fishing is prohibited) to the islands of Kauai. Much of the NWHI stock range east of the Monument is exposed to longline fishery for a portion of the year when the Longline Exclusion Zone contracts toward the islands. Although such contraction was eliminated in 2013, prior to that time the NWHI stock did overlap with a reasonable level of fishing effort during the contraction period. There are in fact two takes of FKWs within the overlap zone between the fishery and all three stocks of FKWs in 2012.

    Comment 43: One commenter recommended that NMFS include a statistical test to determine whether the regression analysis of California harbor seals net production is statistically different from no change.

    Response: The previous text (and figure) in this SAR addressing net production for this harbor seal population is being deleted, because any assessment of net production needs to incorporate accurate information on human-caused mortality. Such information is lacking for this stock, as the fishery historically responsible for most mortality has only been observed sporadically in recent years. Text appears in the SAR detailing why the estimation of net production for this stock is not possible.

    Comment 44: One commenter suggested that the population estimate for California harbor seals does not represent the entire population of the stock. Another commenter suggested that NMFS's current sampling methods understate harbor seal and California sea lion populations along the California coast.

    Response: The SAR states that a complete count of all harbor seals is not possible because not all seals will be hauled out of the water during the time of surveys. NMFS has worked with other researchers to develop haul-out correction factors, which are used to account for the number of animals not hauled out at the time of surveys. Such correction factors are incorporated into final population size estimates, which represents the best available method to adjust raw counts upwards to account for animals in the water at the time of surveys.

    Comments on Alaska Regional Reports

    Comment 45: The Commission recommended that NMFS reference in the Alaska Region SARs any workshop reports or recommendations that came from meetings in December 2010 and March 2011, when NMFS partnered with the Indigenous People's Council on Marine Mammals to convene two workshops of marine mammal hunters and representatives from Alaska Native Organizations.

    Response: We appreciate the recommendation and will review the workshop reports and recommendations from these meetings to determine whether to include any of this information in future SAR revisions.

    Comment 46: The Commission recommended that NMFS provide an update on the status of the development of a statewide program for monitoring subsistence hunting and harvests. The Commission further recommended that NMFS should update all related information in the SARs and address concerns about any potential shortcomings in these efforts. For example, NMFS should clarify if the following statement from the ribbon seal SAR is still accurate: “at this time, there are no efforts to quantify the total statewide level of harvest of ribbon seals by all Alaska communities.”

    Response: NMFS agrees that a comprehensive statewide program for monitoring subsistence hunting and harvests would be desirable, but is not funded. NMFS works with our partners in Alaska Native Organizations and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to obtain information for many subsistence-harvested marine mammal species. While incomplete, these efforts provide some assurance that the current and foreseeable levels of subsistence use are sustainable for all marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction that are presently harvested.

    We have made considerable updates of the subsistence harvest information in the draft 2015 ringed seal, ribbon seal, and bearded seal SARs, and we will update this information in the spotted seal SAR the next time it is revised.

    Comment 47: For the SAR for the North Pacific stock of right whales, the Commission recommended that NMFS estimate the range of ship-strike probabilities and assess the results in the context of this stock's PBR level and a population viability analysis.

    Response: Unfortunately, at this time there are no data with which to undertake this exercise and too few data on other relevant variables to construct a meaningful population viability analysis for North Pacific right whales.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Cathryn E. Tortorici, Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20502 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE098 Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Issuance of one permit and receipt of four permit modification requests for scientific research and enhancement.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that NMFS has issued Endangered Species Act (ESA) scientific research Permit 18251 to the Marine Science Institute. Additionally, NMFS has received four scientific research and enhancement permit modification requests relating to anadromous species listed under the ESA. The proposed research activities are intended to increase knowledge of the species and to help guide management and conservation efforts. The application for each permit is available on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS), https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov Web site by searching the permit number within the Search Database page. The applications for each permit modification request may be viewed online at: https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov/preview/preview_open_for_comment.cfm.

    DATES:

    Comments or requests for a public hearing on the applications must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES) no later than 5 p.m. Pacific standard time on September 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments on the applications should be submitted to the California Central Valley Office, NMFS, 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 5-100, Sacramento, CA 95814. Comments may also be submitted via fax to 916-930-3629 or by email to [email protected] (include the permit number in the subject line of the fax or email).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amanda Cranford, Sacramento, CA (ph.: 916-930-3706), Fax: 916-930-3629, email: [email protected]). Permit application instructions are available from the address above, or online at https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Species Covered in This Notice

    The following listed species are covered in this notice:

    Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): threatened Central Valley spring-run (CVSR); endangered Sacramento River winter-run (SRWR).

    Steelhead (O. mykiss): threatened California Central Valley (CCV);

    North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medisrostris): threatened southern distinct population segment (SDPS).

    Authority

    Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq) and regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-227). NMFS issues permits based on findings that such permits: (1) Are applied for in good faith; (2) if granted and exercised, would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species that are the subject of the permit; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policy of section 2 of the ESA. The authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits.

    Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES). Such hearings are held at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS.

    Permits Issued Permit 18251

    A notice of the receipt of an application for a scientific research and enhancement permit (18251) was published in the Federal Register on March 10, 2014 (79 FR 13279). Permit 18251 was issued to the Marine Science Institute on June 30, 2014 and expires on December 31, 2018. Permit 18251 authorizes take of SRWR Chinook salmon smolts, CVSR Chinook salmon smolts, CCV steelhead smolts, and juvenile SDPS green sturgeon associated with monitoring and research activities conducted in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Central Valley, California. The purpose of the research is to educate local 6th graders and their parents about the Delta ecosystem and to teach them how to be better stewards of the watershed. The students will go on a 3.5 hour voyage. During the voyage they will rotate through four stations: Hydrology (discussion based), Benthic (mud grab and invertebrate study), Plankton (plankton tow and identification), and Ichthyology (Otter trawl and fish identification). During the Ichthyology station a five minute mid-water trawl using an Otter trawl will be deployed to collect fish for the students to study. The net will be emptied by instructional staff into a tank that is constantly refilled with water from the Delta. Any species of concern are then identified and immediately released back into the Delta. Fish are transferred from the tank back into Delta by buckets filled with water from the Delta to minimize stress.

    Modification Requests Received Permit 18181—2M

    The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is requesting to modify Permit 18181. Permit 18181 was issued to CDFW on January 14, 2014 for take of CVSR Chinook salmon, SRWR Chinook salmon, CCV steelhead, and SDPS green sturgeon associated with research and rescue activities in the Upper Sacramento River and associated tributaries in Shasta and Tehama counties, the Colusa Basin Drainage Canal (CBDC), Wallace and Fremont weirs in the Yolo Bypass, and Tisdale Weir in the Sutter Bypass. CDFW is requesting to modify Permit 18181 to include additional rescue and monitoring efforts that routinely occur throughout the Central Valley. Further, after conducting capture and relocation activities within the CBDC and at Wallace Weir, the project description, sampling methodologies and take estimates can be refined to better reflect the current rescue operations. The primary purpose of the proposed monitoring will be to assess entrainment of ESA-listed salmonids and SDPS green sturgeon resulting from extreme environmental conditions and complex water operations within California's Central Valley. CDFW will assess the conditions leading to entrainment and determine whether rescue and relocation activities are warranted. The rescue and relocation efforts proposed are: (1) The CBDC Trapping and Relocation Operation, which aims to trap and relocate adult Chinook salmon and other species of management concern before they enter and become entrained within the CDBC; (2) Monitoring of Sacramento River Flood Control Project Weirs and Flood Relief Structures, bypasses are surveyed after high flow events to determine the level of entrainment and if warranted rescues will be conducted, with a specific focus on Tisdale and Fremont weirs in the Sacramento River; and (3) Upper Sacramento River Redd Dewatering Surveys and Rescue of Stranded Juvenile Winter-run Chinook Salmon, which allows CDFW biologists to predict the flow at which redds will be dewatered on a redd-by-redd basis and conduct rescues if necessary. Rescue and relocation of ESA-listed fish will be carried out using fyke traps, Alaskan-style resistance board weirs, block nets, hoop nets, fyke nets, and beach seines. Observational surveys using dual identification sonar (DIDSON) imagery may also be conducted if necessary. The majority of captured fish would be identified to species, enumerated, measured for standard length, sampled for tissues and released. Juvenile SRWR and CVSR Chinook salmon would be identified using the Length-at-Date-of-Capture Table. ESA-listed species would be processed first and released. Adult salmonids that are trapped during rescue and relocation activities will be sampled for tissues (genetics), tagged with two individually numbered Floy tags, and relocated to the nearest, accessible location on the Sacramento River. If SDPS green sturgeon are encountered during rescue activities, acoustic tags will be surgically implanted by trained staff and data will be recorded on fish size, condition, and time of release. To reduce handling mortality, investigators will conduct water to water transfers, use fish-friendly nets, avoid handling when possible, and release fish will at the nearest suitable location to reduce handling and transport times.

    Permit 14808-2M

    Permit 14808 was issued to CDFW on September 26, 2012 for take of juvenile CVSR Chinook salmon, SRWR Chinook salmon, and CCV steelhead while conducting juvenile emigration monitoring at Knights Landing in the Lower Sacramento River, Yolo County, California. The permit modification is being requested in order to refine sampling methods, increase take levels and address changes to the proposed procedures. Additionally, CDFW requested that all ongoing research and monitoring be consolidated into a single section 10(a)(1)(A) Permit to improve efficiencies associated with reporting. In addition to the juvenile emigration monitoring at Knights Landing, which aims to compile information on timing, composition (species/race), and relative abundance of juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead emigrating from the Upper Sacramento River system into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, CDFW is requesting that the following research and monitoring efforts be added to Permit 14808: (1) The Central Valley Steelhead Monitoring Program, that includes studies targeting CCV steelhead throughout the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River basins in order to examine the distribution, abundance, and population trends of CCV steelhead and provide the data necessary to help assess progress towards restoration and recovery goals; and (2) Upper Sacramento River Restoration Site Monitoring, which will establish baseline use at proposed restoration sites to help determine the success once restoration projects are implemented through juvenile presence/absence surveys at a variety of sites on the Upper Sacramento River. CDFW will conduct juvenile emigration monitoring through the use of paired 8-foot rotary screw traps (RSTs) on the Sacramento River beginning in October and continuing through June of the following year. Traps will be fished continuously and checked once every 24 hours unless conditions such as high flows or excessive debris warrant more frequent sampling. Captured salmonids will be handled (including measurements), allowed to recover in fresh aerated water and released back into the Sacramento River. A small subsample of adipose fin-clipped (hatchery-origin) Chinook salmon will be sacrificed (directed mortality) daily for coded wire tag extraction and analysis. The Steelhead Monitoring Program will utilize wire fyke traps to capture, mark, and recapture upstream migrating adult steelhead in order to estimate adult steelhead escapement from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Fyke trapping will occur annually from August through May. A DIDSON camera or device of similar capabilities will be placed at the entrance to the fyke traps to monitor salmonid movements and assist in adjusting trap placement to maximize capture rates. Traps will be fished 24 hours a day with all traps being inspected, cleaned, and emptied at least once every 24 hours to minimize the period of time steelhead are detained. All captured steelhead (hatchery and wild) will be enumerated, weighed, measured, sexed (if possible), photographed for body condition, checked for previous tags, and sampled for scales. Healthy steelhead captured in good condition will receive a passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag. Hatchery-origin steelhead will receive a two inch, individually numbered, bicolor Floy tag posterior to the dorsal fin. A randomly selected subset of captured steelhead will receive an acoustic tag in addition to PIT and Floy tags to determine migration and survival behavior. Individuals selected for acoustic tagging will be surgically tagged with a VEMCO acoustic transmitter tag or similarly compatible device in the abdomen posterior to the pelvic fins. Tag recapture monitoring in Sacramento River tributaries will be performed using in-stream PIT tag detection antennas. Current angler harvest surveys and hatchery broodstock collection programs combined with advances in tag detection technology will allow biologists to estimate the number of tag recaptures to Sacramento River tributaries. All Upper Sacramento River Restoration Site Monitoring will be observational and no handling of juvenile salmonids will occur. Sampling methods will include snorkel surveys, video surveys and DIDSON surveys. The survey results will help Restoration Ecologists design better projects in the future. Information collected will also help to determine locations where juvenile Chinook salmon are rearing upstream of Red Bluff Diversion Dam.

    Permit 1415-2M

    Permit 1415 was issued to the USFWS, Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office on February 6, 2014. The overall purpose of the project is to provide monitoring data for various evaluations, including restoration actions, stream flow assessments, management actions, and life-history investigations. Species under investigation include CVSR Chinook salmon, SRWR Chinook salmon, CCV steelhead, and SDPS green sturgeon while conducting research studies in Battle Creek, Clear Creek, and the Upper Sacramento River Basin (i.e., Upper River and surrounding watersheds). The permit modification requested by USFWS is specific to Study 6—Sacramento River Juvenile Fish Monitoring at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam. All other studies authorized under Permit 1415 will remain unchanged at this time. Take resulting from the research and monitoring activities carried out by USFWS will involve observations (snorkel surveys, redd counts and escapement/stream surveys) or capture (by trawl, seine, fyke-net trap, benthic D-net, substrate samplers, hook and line, backpack electrofishing, weir trap, trammel or gill net, rotary screw trap, egg mats, or by dip net), handling (sedation, fin clipping, tissue sampling, coded-wire tag extraction, otolith extraction), marking (Bismark brown Y stain), tagging (acoustic, PIT), and release of fish once adequately recovered. A majority of the ESA-listed fish that are captured will be immediately collected from the sampling gears, placed in containers filled with river water collected at the location being sampled, processed, held in a recovery container filled with aerated river water, and subsequently released at the sampled location. One exception includes the proposed intentional directed mortality of up to 80 SRWR Chinook salmon juveniles associated with Study 6. The purpose of the directed intentional mortality of SRWR Chinook salmon is to determine potential mechanisms for reduced survival in collaboration with the USWFS California-Nevada Fish Health Center. Extreme drought conditions and poor in-river conditions appear to be having adverse effects on emigrating juvenile salmonids. Elevated water temperatures are likely increasing the prevalence of some bacteria and parasite infections. USFWS will obtain up to 10 live juvenile winter-run Chinook salmon per week (for approximately 8 weeks) from RST monitoring carried out at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam (Study 6), from early September through October. The subsample of juveniles collected from the traps will be sacrificed in order to identify microbial (e.g. parasite and bacteria) and non-infectious (e.g. coagulative yolk, gill hyperplasia) disease in the out-migrant juvenile SRWR Chinook salmon population passing the RSTs during the typical peak period. The low sample number proposed would likely limit detection to high prevalence pathogens. The histological approach will provide information on the severity of any given condition and is logistically prudent for the RST monitoring.

    Permit 17299-2M

    Permit 17299 was issued to the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC), Fishery Ecology Division (FED), on April 4, 2013 for research to be conducted at various sites and hatcheries within California's Central Valley. The main purpose of the research conducted by the SWFSC is to carry out comparative studies on salmonid ecology across all Central Valley habitats (streams, rivers and Delta) to increase knowledge of California's Chinook salmon and steelhead life histories. The modification request relates to the life stages sampled and the total take associated with Studies 1 and 3 authorized by Permit 17299. These studies include investigations into outmigration survival based upon telemetry technology and investigations of the physiological response (as measured by aerobic scope) to varying temperature and flow regimes. Given the current threats posed to SRWR Chinook salmon including anthropogenic alterations of natural flow regimes and climate change, these studies quantitatively measures the capacity for adaptation of SRWR Chinook salmon juveniles to these conditions. The unprecedented conditions associated with the California drought have exacerbated these challenges, such that more detailed and finer resolution studies are needed to evaluate the potential consequences of a range of water management options including management of cold water storage pools behind large dams and pulse flows. The permit modification request aims to address these needs by increasing the sample sizes and associated take, and by broadening the scope of studies to include additional life stages. Study 1 is a large scale telemetry project to assess habitat use, behavior and survival of hatchery- and natural-origin SRWR and CVSR Chinook salmon and CCV steelhead. Additional take associated with increased sample sizes will allow for better estimates of survival and identification of conditions that may be affecting juvenile salmonid emigration. Study 3 will measure the physiological capacity (aerobic scope and other cardiovascular capabilities) of hatchery-origin salmonids to deal with potential seasonal and geographic temperature challenges, by identifying their combined threshold tolerance to abiotic factors such as temperature, dissolved oxygen and flow. The SWFSC will use this data to determine sites where these factors may be limiting migration, survival and growth. This study requires that all fish tested be euthanized in order to collect the appropriate information and assess the aerobic scope. All euthanized fish will also be sampled for otoliths (age/growth), and organ tissue (isotope, biochemical and genomic expression assays), examined for parasite infections, and will contribute to tag effects/retention studies. The SWFSC proposes to broaden the scope of Study 3 through increased sample sizes and the addition of take for other life stages (eggs, fry, alevin, and parr). This additional take is in response to an urgent data gap on the temperature tolerance of these life stages. The proposed research will benefit ESA-listed fish by supporting conservation and management of anadromous salmonids and green sturgeon in California by directly addressing information needs identified by NMFS and other agencies.

    This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the Federal Register.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Cathryn E. Tortorici, Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20616 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Corporation for National and Community Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance 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. Sec. 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 requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.

    Currently, CNCS is soliciting comments concerning its proposed Employers of National Service Enrollment Form. The Employers of National Service program is administered by CNCS (in conjunction with the Peace Corps, the National Peace Corps Association, the Points of Light Foundation and the Aspen Institute), and seeks to connect employers from all sectors with AmeriCorps and Peace Corps alumni. Organizations that are looking to join the initiative will be filling out this form in order to document their participation. Information provided is purely voluntary and will not be used for any grant or funding support.

    Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the Addresses section of this Notice.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the ADDRESSES section by October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:

    (1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service; Attention: Erin Dahlin, Deputy Chief of Program Operations, Room 9309; 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20525.

    (2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at Room 8100 at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    (3) Electronically through www.regulations.gov.

    Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erin Dahlin, 202-606-6931, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • 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 expected to respond, including 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).

    Background

    Organizations from all sectors seeking to become Employers of National Service will be filling out this form, including businesses, nonprofits, institutions of higher education, school districts, state/local governments, and federal agencies. One of the form's key purposes is to document what the organization is committing to doing as an Employer of National Service and provide organizational information to CNCS, the Peace Corps, the Points of Light Foundation, the Aspen Institute and the National Peace Corps Association. The information in the form will also allow CNCS to display the organization's information accurately online as a resource for job seekers. It will also enable CNCS to speak to the diversity within the program's membership, both for internal planning and external audience use. The information will be collected electronically via our Web site.

    Current Action

    This is a new information collection request. The items on the form are: Employer name; a short description of the employer; the sector in which the employer operates (private, nonprofit, etc.); location (specific address for headquarters and list of additional cities/states or countries, if applicable); workforce information (total employees, hires in last year, and number of national service alumni); human resources policy commitment as an Employer of National Service; contact information; a link to the Web page where alums can apply for employment; optional statement from leadership; the source from which the employer learned about the program, and any optional comments.

    Type of Review: New.

    Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

    Title: Employers of National Service Enrollment Form.

    OMB Number: None.

    Agency Number: None.

    Affected Public: Any organization seeking to join the Employers of National Service program.

    Total Respondents: 300.

    Frequency: Ongoing.

    Average Time per Response: 15 minutes.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 75 hours.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

    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 17, 2015. Erin Dahlin, Deputy Chief of Program Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20600 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Transfers of Administrative Jurisdiction, Camp Frank D. Merrill and Lake Lanier, Georgia AGENCY:

    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, ordered transfers of two properties: Camp Frank D. Merrill from the Secretary of Agriculture to the Secretary of the Army and the Lake Lanier Property from the Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of Agriculture, as well as publication of the maps and legal description in the Federal Register. This notice provides the required maps and legal description.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents are on file at locations:

    1. U.S. Army Engineer District, Savannah, 100 East Oglethorpe Avenue, Savannah, Georgia 31401-3064.

    2. Office of the Southern Region, USDA, 1720 Peachtree Street NW., Room 792, Atlanta, Georgia 30309-2449.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Belinda Estabrook, Realty Specialist, 912-652-5667.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Pub. L. 113-291, Section 2836), ordered transfers as follows:

    (1) CAMP FRANK D. MERRILL.—Not later than September 30, 2015, the Secretary of Agriculture shall transfer to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army for required Army force protection measures certain Federal land administered as part of the Chattahoochee National Forest, but permitted to the Secretary of the Army for Camp Frank D. Merrill in Dahlonega, Georgia, consisting of approximately 282 acres identified in the permit numbers 0018-01.

    (2) LAKE LANIER PROPERTY.—In exchange for the land transferred under paragraph (1), the Secretary of the Army (acting through the Chief of Engineers) shall transfer to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture certain Federal land administered by the Army Corps of Engineers and consisting of approximately 10 acres adjacent to Lake Lanier at 372 Dunlap Landing Road, Gainesville, Georgia.

    The legal descriptions and maps of the transferred parcels, Camp Merrill and Lake Lanier are provided below:

    1. Camp Merrill

    Being a part of USA Tracts G-274, G-380, G-641-L, G-641-L-II, G-678a, G-678b, G-1320Ah, G-1320Aj, and G-1634, and lying and being in Land Lots 310, 311, & 312 of the 6th District, 1st Section, and Land Lots 937, 938, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, & 1080 of the 11th District, 1st Section, Lumpkin County, Georgia, containing 282.21 acres more or less. Said tracts were acquired by the United States in the hereinafter listed Condemnation Actions:

    United States of America v. J. E. Collins. Tract G-274, consisting of 399.45 acres, At Law #38, entered on December 29, 1929 and recorded in Lumpkin County at Book Q1-61 on February 26, 1930.

    United States of America v. Craig R. Arnold. Tract G-380, consisting of 313.00 acres, At Law #144, entered on December 2, 1935 and recorded in Lumpkin County at Book S1-427 on March 16, 1936.

    United States of America v. Rowland Lumber Company. Tract G-641-L, consisting of 187.56 acres, At Law #59, entered on April 27, 1931 and recorded in Lumpkin County at Book Q1-430 on May 28, 1931.

    United States of America v. Rowland Lumber Company. Tract G-641-L-II, consisting of 12.44 acres, At Law #59, entered on April 27, 1931 and recorded in Lumpkin County at Book Q1-430 on May 28, 1931.

    United States of America v. J. H. Hawes. Tract G-678a, consisting of 78.94 acres, At Law #1255, entered on December 15, 1930 and recorded in Lumpkin County at Book Q1-299 on February 9, 1931.

    United States of America v. J. H. Hawes. Tract G-678b, consisting of 18.08 acres, At Law #1255, entered on December 15, 1930 and recorded in Lumpkin County at Book Q1-299 on February 9, 1931.

    United States of America v. Morse Brothers Lumber Company. Tract G-1320Ah, consisting of 169.16 acres, At Law #1106, entered on April 11, 1929 and recorded in Lumpkin County at Book Q1-170 on June 9, 1930.

    United States of America v. Morse Brothers Lumber Company. Tract G-1320Aj, consisting of 267.04 acres, At Law #1106, entered on April 11, 1929 and recorded in Lumpkin County at Book Q1-170 on June 9, 1930.

    United States of America v. William Black. Tract G-1634, consisting of 188.40 acres, At Law #478, entered on October 21, 1952 and recorded in Lumpkin County at Book C2-305 on December 30, 1952.

    Depicted as USA Tract C-2368 on a plat titled “SURVEY FOR: U.S. Department of Defense U.S. Army Camp Merrill” dated July 13, 2015 by Georgia Licensed Surveyors Mark E. Chastain and Jason D. Watkins, and recorded in Plat Book ___ Page ___, of the Lumpkin County Superior Court public records, which plat is attached hereto and made part hereof, more particularly described as follows:

    Commencing at Corner 2 of USA Tract G-641 L-I, a 11/4″ galvanized pipe, being also the SE corner of land lot 1007, 11th District, 1st Section Lumpkin County, Georgia; thence N. 05°10′13″ W. 1,506.72 feet to Corner 1 of USA Tract C-2368, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap, being a point interior to USA Tract G-641-L and Land Lot 938, and the Point of Beginning; thence S. 15°08′01″ W. 920.63 feet to Corner 2, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap in Land Lot 1007; thence S. 61°58′52″ W. 193.61 feet to Corner 3, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap; thence S. 52°49′47″ W. 1,082.21 feet to Corner 4, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap in Land Lot 1009; thence N. 74°08′17″ W. 1,074.48 feet to Corner 5, a point in Hightower Church Road, and interior to Land Lot 1008, witnessed by a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap which bears S. 74°08′17″ E. 24.99 feet; thence along and with the meanders of the center of Hightower Church Road the following 14 calls, as shown on the attached plat: S. 32°27′28″ W. 51.69 feet to a point; thence S. 34°30′28″ W. 67.86 feet to a point; thence S. 33°48′29″ W. 66.47 feet to a point; thence S. 32°14′01″ W. 63.81 feet to a point; thence S. 27°59′39″ W. 61.95 feet to a point; thence S. 21°47′03″ W. 63.21 feet to a point; thence S. 15°12′00″ W. 66.96 feet to a point; thence S. 12°01′22″ W. 70.88 feet to a point; thence S. 10°45′50″ W. 72.00 feet to a point; thence S. 10°13′53″ W. 65.57 feet to a point; thence S. 10°32′03″ W. 64.67 feet to a point; thence S. 11°58′44″ W. 63.85 feet to a point; thence S. 12°42′26″ W. 43.48 feet to a point; thence S. 13°58′11″ W. 8.67 feet to Corner 6, a point in Land Lot 310 and the center of Hightower Church Road, witnessed by a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap which bears S 78°58′43″ W. 26.31 feet; thence leaving said Hightower Church Road, S 78°58'43″ E. 208.95 feet to Corner 7, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap in Land Lot 1009; thence S. 14°09′32″ E. 804.72 feet to Corner 8, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap in Land Lot 1080; thence S 69°15′21″ W. 455.17 feet to Corner 9, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap in Land Lot 310; thence S 62°47′26″ W. 828.38 feet to Corner 10, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap; thence N. 14°08′21″ W. 5,367.35 feet to Corner 11, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap in Land Lot 312; thence N. 75°52′33″ E. 1,634.85 feet to Corner 12, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap; thence S. 14°07′40″ E. 698.63 feet to Corner 13, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap; thence S 29°40′28″ E. 1,806.27 feet to Corner 14, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap in Land Lot 937; thence N. 67°13′37″ E. 27.86 feet to Corner 15, a nail and washer set in the center of Coopers Gap Road; thence along and with the meanders of the center of Coopers Gap Road the following 28 calls, as shown on the attached plat: N. 19°57′36″ E 51.01 feet to a point; thence N. 39°03′30″ E. 27.54 feet to a point; thence N. 24°43′35″ E 39.60 feet to a point; thence N. 04°00′08″ E. 51.23 feet to a point; thence N. 02°16′55″ E 63.59 feet to a point; thence N. 02°18′19″ E. 67.12 feet to a point; thence N. 05°26′56″ E 56.45 feet to a point; thence N. 17°50′40″ E. 46.12 feet to a point; thence N. 46°03′49″ E 35.38 feet to a point; thence N. 84°08′40″ E. 30.28 feet to a point; thence S. 61°29′42″ E 27.02 feet to a point; thence S. 38°55′06″ E. 49.53 feet to a point; thence S. 47°14′37″ E 64.30 feet to a point; thence S. 50°31′54″ E. 30.94 feet to a point; thence S. 66°57′34″ E 39.25 feet to a point; thence N. 89°49′03″ E. 29.67 feet to a point; thence N. 53°38′19″ E 34.60 feet to a point; thence N. 26°27′55″ E. 38.55 feet to a point; thence N. 12°21′38″ E 34.43 feet to a point; thence N. 00°26′18″ E. 22.52 feet to a point; thence N. 04°56′23″ W. 45.65 feet to a point; thence N. 07°11′01″ W. 81.94 feet to a point; thence N. 06°18′04″ W. 79.77 feet to a point; thence N. 06°02′44″ W. 74.49 feet to a point; thence N. 06°10′43″ W. 22.92 feet to a point; thence N. 05°12′12″ W. 72.09 feet to a point; thence N. 04°48′48″ W. 96.88 feet to a point; thence N. 03°22′36″ W. 23.48 feet to a Corner 16, a point in the center of Coopers Gap Road; witnessed by a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap which bears S. 89°15′22″ E. 21.00 feet; thence leaving said Coopers Gap Road S. 89°15′22″ E. 993.53 feet to Corner 17, a 23/8 inch aluminum post with 31/4 inch USFS cap in Land Lot 938; thence S. 04°28′28″ E. 1021.46 feet to the Point of Beginning; containing 282.21 acres, more or less; less and except 0.95 acres shown as “Mount Zion #1” and 0.26 acres for a cemetery as shown on said plat incorporated herewith; and any easements for existing or established public roads, highways, and utilities, if any.

    A Map of Camp Merrill is at Figure 1.

    EN20AU15.000 2. Lake Lanier Parcel

    Being formerly a part of USACE Tract N-1410, which said tract was acquired by the United States of America by means of condemnation proceedings entitled United States of America vs. 1,114.46 acres of land, more or less, situated in Dawson and Hall Counties, State of Georgia, and Fred O. Rowe, et al., Civil Action No. 701, United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Gainesville Division, Buford Dam and Reservoir Project.

    All that tract or parcel of land lying and being in Land Lots 122 & 123 of the 10th District, City of Gainesville, Hall County, depicted as USA Tract C-2367 on a plat titled “SURVEY FOR: United States Forest Service” dated July 30, 2015 by Georgia Licensed Surveyor Mark E. Chastain, of Chastain & Associates, P.C. (Job #215F42), and recorded in Plat Book ___ Page ___, of the Hall County Superior Court public records, which plat is attached hereto and made part hereof, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument found, designated as “123-C6”, said monument having state plane coordinates (NAD83, Georgia West Zone) of Northing 1582107.49, Easting 2392494.60; thence North 09 Degrees 50 Minutes 54 Seconds West a distance of 264.98 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument found; thence North 09 Degrees 50 Minutes 54 Seconds West a distance of 263.72 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument set, designated “123-D1”; thence North 52 Degrees 17 Minutes 48 Seconds East a distance of 571.14 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument set, designated as “123-D2”; passing a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument set, designated “123-D1-A, at a distance of 285.61 feet from the origin of said course; thence South 54 Degrees 58 Minutes 07 Seconds East a distance of 385.00 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument set, designated “123-D3”, passing a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument set, designated “123-D2-A”, at a distance of 185.63 feet from the origin of said course; thence South 44 Degrees 28 Minutes 21 Seconds West a distance of 100.77 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument set, designated “123-D4”; thence South 05 Degrees 49 Minutes 03 Seconds West a distance of 351.98 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument set, designated “123-D5”; thence with a curve turning to the right with an arc length of 149.69', with a radius of 233.85', with a chord bearing of South 48 Degrees 05 Minutes 12 Seconds West, with a chord length of 147.15', to a point; thence South 66 Degrees 25 Minutes 26 Seconds West a distance of 239.26 feet to a point; thence with a curve turning to the right with an arc length of 171.55′, with a radius of 569.78′, with a chord bearing of South 75 Degrees 02 Minutes 57 Seconds West, with a chord length of 170.90′, to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument set, designated “123-D6”; thence North 50 Degrees 50 Minutes 59 Seconds West a distance of 14.08 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument found, designated “123-C5”; thence North 88 Degrees 11 Minutes 43 Seconds West a distance of 65.64 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monument found, designated “123-C6” and the point of beginning; containing 10.00 acres, more or less.

    Together with a single point of access from the subject tract to and across an existing 50-year public road easement, between the Department of the Army, acting by and through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the City of Gainesville, dated April 26, 1994, to that adjoining public right-of-way known as Dunlap Landing Road, and in accordance with USACE Contract No. DACW01-2-95-0092, including any extensions or renewals of said aforementioned public road easement.

    This statement is being made for the purpose of assuring a legal means of ingress and egress to and from Dunlap Landing Road in accordance with the Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction of subject tract from the Department of Army to the Department of Agriculture, pursuant to Public Law 113-291, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (H.R. 3979) and those authorities under 16 U.S.C 505a-505b. This transfer is subject to existing easements for public roads, highways, public utilities, pipelines as well as any and all oil, gas, and mineral rights outstanding in third parties.

    A Map of Lake Lanier Parcel is at Figure 2.

    EN20AU15.001 Dated: August 6, 2015. Ralph J. Werthmann, Chief, Real Estate Division, Savannah District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20590 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Extension of Public Comment Period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Joint Military Training AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 03, 2015, the Department of Navy (DoN) published a Notice of Availability and Notice of Public Meetings for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Joint Military Training (80 FR 18385, April 03, 2015). Notices extending the public comment period by 60 days and 14 days were published on May 14, 2015 (80 FR 27678) and July 31, 2015 (80 FR 45647), respectively. The purpose of this notice is to announce an additional 45 day extension of the public comment period to October 01, 2015 Eastern Daylight Time (E.D.T.) [October 2, 2015, Chamorro Standard Time (ChST)]. This extension is made in recognition of damage on Saipan from Typhoon Soudelor and the ongoing recovery effort.

    DATES:

    The public comment period for the Draft EIS began on April 03, 2015, EDT [April 04, 2015, ChST] with the publication of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and with this extension, will end on October 1, 2015, EDT [October 2, 2015, ChST] for a total of 179 days. Mailed comments should be postmarked no later than October 1, 2015, EDT [October 2, 2015, ChST] to ensure they are considered.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public may provide comments through the project Web site at www.CNMIJointMilitaryTrainingEIS.com, or by mail at: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific, Attn: 09PA, Public Affairs Office, 258 Makalapa Drive, Suite 100, JBPHH, HI 96860-3134.

    The Draft EIS/OEIS was distributed to federal and local agencies, elected officials, and other interested individuals and organizations. The Draft EIS/OEIS is available for public review at www.CNMIJointMilitaryTrainingEIS.com, and at the following libraries:

    (1) Joeten Kiyu Public Library, Saipan; (2) Northern Marianas College Olympio T. Borja Memorial Library, Saipan; (3) Tinian Public Library, Tinian; (4) Antonio C. Atalig Memorial Rota Public Library, Rota; (5) University of Guam Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Library, Guam; (6) Nieves M. Flores Memorial Library, Guam.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The DoN's proposed action is to establish live-fire Range Training Areas (RTAs) within the CNMI to address the U.S. Pacific Command Service Components' unfilled unit level and combined level training requirements in the Western Pacific. The DoN recognizes that public comments are an essential part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Accordingly, the DoN initially established a 60-day public comment period in lieu of the minimum 45-day period required by NEPA implementing regulations. Notices extending the public comment period by 60 days and 14 days were published on May 14, 2015 (80 FR 27678) and July 31, 2015 (80 FR 45647), respectively. Due to Typhoon Soudelor recovery efforts, the DoN is further extending the Draft EIS public comment period by 45 days to October 1, 2015, EDT [October 2, 2015, ChST] for a total of 179 days.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    CNMI Joint Military Training EIS/OEIS Project Manager by email via the project Web site (www.CNMIJointMilitaryTrainingEIS.com).

    Dated: August 13, 2015. N.A. Hagerty-Ford, Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20507 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Bonneville Power Administration Crooked River Valley Rehabilitation Project AGENCY:

    Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy (DOE).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of Record of Decision (ROD).

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the availability of the ROD to fund implementation of Crooked River Valley Rehabilitation Project in Idaho County, Idaho. BPA has decided to fund implementation of Alternative 2 identified in the Crooked River Valley Rehabilitation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0506, June 2015). Alternative 2 consists of: (1) Constructing a 6,000 foot temporary bypass channel and temporary access road/levee and, following construction of the channel, removing and decommissioning these structures; (2) regrading approximately 115 acres of floodplain by moving dredge tailings; (3) filling in approximately 10,960 feet of the current channel, reconstructing approximately 7,400 feet of new channel, and constructing more than 2,700 feet of side channels; (4) replanting the valley bottom with native and approved non-native plant species; (5) staging materials and equipment at campgrounds; and (6) monitoring project activities and effectiveness. All mitigation measures identified in the environmental impact statement (EIS) are adopted.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the ROD and EIS may be obtained by calling BPA's toll-free document request line, 1-800-622-4520. The ROD and EIS Summary are also available on our Web site, www.bpa.gov/goto/CrookedRiver.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda Aguirre, Bonneville Power Administration—KEC-4, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon, 97208-3621; toll-free telephone number 1-800-622-4519; fax number 503-230-5699; or email [email protected]

    Issued in Portland, Oregon: August 13, 2015. Elliot E. Mainzer, Administrator and Chief Executive Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20603 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Notice for EV Everywhere Logo Design Competition AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of the availability of the EV Everywhere Logo Design Competition, to encourage artists and designers to create a graphic representation of the DOE's efforts to increase the use of plug-in electric vehicles. The Logo Contest includes a $5,000 cash prize.

    DATES:

    The submission period for entries begins at August 13, 2015 and must be received electronically by September 25, 2015 by 11:59 p.m. EST. The winning contestant will be announced October 26, 2015. All dates are subject to change. The winning contestant will be notified in advance of the public announcement.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons can find full details about the competition rules and register to participate online at https://www.challenge.gov/challenge/ev-everywhere-logo-contest/. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Email: [email protected].

    Mail: Robert Graham, EV Everywhere Director, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585, 202-586-3801.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Competition Details

    (1) Subject of Competition: The Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking a new design to be used as the official logo of EV Everywhere. EV Everywhere is the umbrella activity for DOE efforts to increase the use of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs). Its mission is to raise awareness of the benefits of PEVs, help individuals realize that PEVs are a viable option for them, and position DOE as the definitive resource for unbiased, objective information about PEVs.

    EV Everywhere supports DOE's larger goal of reducing the use of petroleum in transportation to increase energy and environmental security. In addition to public outreach and education, it also includes efforts to reduce the cost and improve the convenience of PEVs through research and development as well as increase community readiness for the use of PEVs.

    (2) Dates: The submission period for entries must be submitted in accordance with the deadline identified in the DATES section.

    (3) Eligibility Rules for Participating in the Competition: To be eligible to win a prize under this Logo Design Competition, you—

    (a) Must register to participate in the competition under the link designated for that purpose by DOE on https://www.challenge.gov;

    (b) Must comply with all the requirements under this notice and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-358);

    (c) In the case of an individual, whether participating singly or in a group, must be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States before the submission period ends;

    (d) In the case of a private entity shall be incorporated in and maintain a principal place of business in the United States;

    (e) May not be a Federal employee acting within the scope of your employment;

    (f) May not be an entity with an outstanding, unresolved financial obligation to, or that is currently suspended or debarred by, the federal government; and

    (g) If chosen as the winner of the prize, provide to DOE the necessary personal or business information to allow DOE to award the cash prize.

    If you are under 18 years of age, you must have the permission of a parent or legal guardian to participate. If you are a Federal grantee, you may not use Federal funds to develop applications for this competition unless such use is consistent with the purpose of your grant award. If you are a Federal contractor, you may not use Federal funds from a contract to develop or fund efforts in support of applications for this competition. You may use Federal facilities or consult with Federal employees during the competition if the facilities and employees are made available to all contestants participating in the competition on an equitable basis.

    (4) Registration Process for Contestants: Design competition contestants must submit their “EV Everywhere” Logo designs online as a vector-based image in an .ai, .eps, or PDF file using the link designated for that purpose on https://www.challenge.gov. Contestants can find the link on https://challenge.gov, either by filtering search criteria to “Department of Energy” or going to https://www.vehicles.energy.gov, where the link will be posted. DOE will accept logo design competition submissions only through https://www.challenge.gov.

    Things to keep in mind as you design your “EV Everywhere” Logo:

    (a) The logo should translate the core elements of the EV Everywhere brand, including the benefits of PEVs, the viability of PEVs for the average driver, and EV Everywhere as the source for objective, data-driven, reliable information on PEVs. DOE's Alternative Fuels Data Center describes the basic technology of PEVs and PEVs' major benefits;

    (b) In addition, the logo can evoke through imagery ideas of: Electricity, the “fun” factor of PEVs, PEVs' cost savings, environmental sustainability, and energy security;

    (c) The use of the words “EV Everywhere” is recommended, but not required;

    (d) The use of the words “U.S. Department of Energy” is required;

    (e) The logo should use the following colors alone or in combination:

    a. As primary, dark blue (Pantone 7484; CMYK C45 M27 Y17 K51; RGB R94 G106 B113; HEX 5E6A71) and/or dark green (Pantone 356; CMYK C95 M8 Y93 K27; RGB R0 G121 B52; HEX 007934)

    b. As highlights, light blue (Pantone 2995; CMYK C87 M1 Y0 K0; RGB R0 G169 B224; HEX 1F82BB), light green (Pantone 368; CMYK C63 M0 Y97 K0; RGB R105 G190 B40; HEX 69BE28), yellow (Pantone 116; CMYK C0 M12 Y100 K0; RGB R254 G203 B0; HEX FECB00), red (Pantone 158; CMYK C0 M64 Y95 K0; RGB R227 G114 B34; HEX E37222), and light gray (Pantone 428; CMYK C12 M6 Y5 K12; RGB R195 G200 B200; HEX C3C8C8);

    (f) If the logo includes text, the text should be in Gotham font, or if not available, Calibri;

    (g) The logo should be unique enough that it could be easily recognized by the general public in the future;

    (h) Because it will be used on a vehicle magnetic logo the size of a small bumper sticker, the logo needs to be readable and/or understandable from the back of a moving vehicle.

    (i) The logo should not focus solely on light-duty PEVs; and

    (j) The logo should not conflict or be too similar to existing DOE/EERE logos (available on the EERE Communications Standards Web site) or use elements of the DOE or any other federal agency's logo.

    When uploading your “EV Everywhere” Logo design, in the “Submission Text” field, please include a brief description about your logo entry and thought process behind the design, including any personal experience the designer has with PEVs.

    (5) Prize for Winner: The winning contestant will be awarded a $5,000 prize and the design will become the official logo for the EV Everywhere activities, the magnetic decals, the program's Web site and any official DOE purpose.

    (6) Selection of Winner: DOE will select a judging panel that will consist of DOE officials, EV industry leaders, and other communications experts. Judges will be fair and impartial. A judge may not have personal or financial interests in, or be an employee, officer, director, or agent of any contestant or have a familial or financial relationship with a contestant.

    Judges will use the following weighted criteria to judge the submitted designs:

    (a) Effectiveness of communicating the EV Everywhere mission and brand (500/1000 points). This includes the idea of plug-in electric vehicles, their benefits, their viability for the average driver, and the DOE as a source of unbiased, data-driven information. This may be done through a realistic or abstract design;

    (b) Creativity and originality (300/1000 points). Is the visual quality of the design at once informative and representative of imagery connected to EV Everywhere; and

    (c) Design can be easily replicated, especially as a magnetic decal (200/1000 points). Can this design be replicated successfully, without excessive cost, for many media formats.

    The judging panel will evaluate the submissions and choose the final winning design from all submissions. In the event that no entries fully meet the above criteria to the panel's satisfaction, the Department of Energy is under no obligation to select a winner. All decisions by DOE are final and binding with respect to the contest. For questions or further information, please see the contact information listed in the DATES section above.

    (7) Applicable Law: This design competition is being conducted by DOE pursuant to the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act requirements at 15 U.S.C. 3719 and is subject to all applicable federal laws and regulations. By participating in this design competition, each contestant gives its full and unconditional agreement to these Official Rules. A contestant's eligibility for a prize award is contingent upon their fulfilling all requirements identified in this notice. Publication of this notice is not an obligation of funds on the part of DOE. DOE reserves the right to cancel, suspend, and/or modify this contest, in whole or in part, at any time prior to the award of prizes.

    (8) Resolution of Disputes: The Department of Energy is solely responsible for administrative decisions, which are final and binding in all matters related to the contest. In the event of a dispute as to any registration, the authorized account holder of the email address used to register will be deemed to be the contestant. The “authorized account holder” is the natural person or legal entity assigned an email address by an Internet access provider, online service provider or other organization responsible for assigning email addresses for the domain associated with the submitted address. Contestants and potential winner may be required to show proof of being the authorized account holder.

    (9) Intellectual Property Rights:

    (a) By submitting a design to this competition, you represent and warrant that you are the sole author and copyright owner of the submitted design; that the submission is your original work, and as the contestant, you have sufficient rights to use and authorize others, including DOE, to use the submission, as specified throughout the Official Rules, that the submission does not violate or infringe upon the copyright or upon any other third party rights of other parties, including but not limited to privacy, publicity, or intellectual property rights, or material that constitutes copyright or license infringement. Your design may not contain any material that is inappropriate, indecent, obscene, hateful, defamatory, or in any way disparaging. Your design cannot have been submitted previously in another promotion or contest of any kind.

    (b) You understand and agree that if your entry is selected as the winning design, it may be modified or altered by DOE, in its sole discretion, as deemed appropriate or necessary to execute, produce, or distribute the winning design in its final logo format.

    (c) The winning contestant will, in consideration of the prize to be awarded, grant to DOE an irrevocable, royalty-free, exclusive worldwide license to reproduce, distribute, copy, display, create derivative works, and publicly post, link to, and share, the winning design or parts thereof, for the purpose of the design competition and for any official EV Everywhere or DOE purpose.

    (10) Publicity Rights: Upon registration, each contestant consents to DOE's and its agents' use, in perpetuity, of its name, likeness, photograph, voice, opinions, and/or hometown and state information for promotional or informational purposes through any form of media, worldwide, without payment or consideration.

    (11) Liability and Insurance Requirements:

    (a) Any and all information provided by or obtained from the Federal Government is without any warranty or representation whatsoever, including but not limited to its suitability for any particular purpose.

    (b) Upon registration, each contestant agrees to assume any and all risks of injury or loss in connection with or in any way arising from participation in this contest. Upon registration, except in the case of willful misconduct, all contestants agree to and, thereby, do waive and release any and all claims or causes of action against the Federal Government and its officers, employees and agents for any and all injury and damage of any nature whatsoever (whether existing or thereafter arising, whether direct, indirect, or consequential and whether foreseeable or not), arising from their participation in the contest, whether the claim or cause of action arises under contract or tort.

    (c) Upon registration, you agree to and, thereby, shall indemnify and hold harmless the Federal government and its officers, employees and agents for any and all injury and damage of any nature whatsoever (whether existing or thereafter arising, whether direct, indirect, or consequential and whether foreseeable or not), arising from or related to competition activities.

    (d) Contestants are required to demonstrate financial responsibility by certifying that they have $500 to cover claims in the amount of $500 or less, made by: (A) A third party for death, bodily injury, or property damage, or loss resulting from an activity carried out in connection with participation in the Logo competition; and (B) the Federal Government for damage or loss to Government property resulting from such an activity.

    (12) Record Retention and FOIA: All materials submitted to DOE as part of a submission become DOE records and cannot be returned. Any confidential commercial information contained in a submission should be designated at the time of submission. Submitters will be notified of any Freedom of Information Act requests for their submissions in accordance with 29 CFR 70.26.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 13, 2015. David Danielson, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20475 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14657-000] Appalachian Mountain Club; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879, December 17, 1987), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for the Zealand Falls Hydroelectric Project, located on the on Whitewall Brook, in the Town of Bethlehem, Grafton County, New Hampshire and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project. The project occupies 0.66 acres of federal land managed by the U.S. Forest Service.

    The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.govusing 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).

    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    For further information, contact John Baummer at (202) 502-6837.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20428 Filed 8-19-15; 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: EC15-189-000.

    Applicants: Prairie Breeze Wind Energy LLC, Prairie Breeze Wind Energy II LLC, Prairie Breeze Wind Energy III LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers and Expedited Action of Prairie Breeze Wind Energy LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 8/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20150814-5147.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG15-115-000.

    Applicants: Pavant Solar, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Pavant Solar, LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20150814-5081.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG15-116-000.

    Applicants: Latigo Wind Park, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Latigo Wind Park, LLC under EG15-116.

    Filed Date: 8/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20150814-5173.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2137-013; ER14-2798-005; ER14-2799-005; ER12-161-012; ER12-164-012; ER15-1873-002; ER12-645-014; ER10-2130-013; ER10-2131-013; ER10-2138-013; ER10-2139-013; ER10-2140-013; ER10-2141-013; ER14-2187-007; ER11-4044-014; ER11-4046-013; ER10-2129-010; ER10-2134-010; ER10-2136-011; ER15-103-004; ER10-2127-012; ER10-2125-013; ER14-25-009; ER15-1041-002; ER10-2133-013; ER10-2135-010; ER10-2124-012; ER11-3872-014; ER10-2132-012; ER10-2128-012; ER10-2764-012.

    Applicants: Beech Ridge Energy LLC, Beech Ridge Energy II LLC, Beech Ridge Energy Storage LLC, Bishop Hill Energy LLC, Bishop Hill Energy III LLC, Buckeye Wind Energy LLC, California Ridge Wind Energy LLC, Forward Energy LLC, Grand Ridge Energy LLC, Grand Ridge Energy II LLC, Grand Ridge Energy III LLC, Grand Ridge Energy IV LLC, Grand Ridge Energy V LLC, Grand Ridge Energy Storage LLC, Gratiot County Wind LLC, Gratiot County Wind II LLC, Grays Harbor Energy LLC, Hardee Power Partners Limited, Invenergy Cannon Falls LLC, Invenergy Nelson LLC, Invenergy TN LLC, Judith Gap Energy LLC, Prairie Breeze Wind Energy LLC, Prairie Breeze Wind Energy II LLC, Sheldon Energy LLC, Spindle Hill Energy LLC, Spring Canyon Energy LLC, Stony Creek Energy LLC, Willow Creek Energy LLC, Wolverine Creek Energy LLC, Vantage Wind Energy LLC.

    Description: Notification of Change in Facts of Beech Ridge Energy LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 8/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20150814-5186.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-517-003.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Cross-Sound Cable Company, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Standards for Bus Prac & Comm Protocols Cross Sound Cable Errata Filing to be effective 5/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20150814-5130.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2441-000.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-8-13_Implement Reliability Coordinator Charges Settlement Process to be effective 10/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150813-5219.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2442-000.

    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of CIAC Agreement with Maquoketa Valley to be effective 10/12/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150813-5223.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2443-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.

    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits Second Quarter 2015 Capital Budget Report.

    Filed Date: 8/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150813-5248.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2444-000.

    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.

    Description: Idaho Power Company submits Average System Cost Filing for Sales of Electric Power to the Bonneville Power Administration, FY 2016-2017.

    Filed Date: 8/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150813-5249.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2445-000.

    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.

    Description: Puget Sound Energy, Inc. submits Average System Cost Filing for Sales of Electric Power to the Bonneville Power Administration, FY 2016-2017.

    Filed Date: 8/13/15.

    Accession Number: 20150813-5250.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2446-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-08-14_SA 2828 MidAmerican Energy-Farmers City Wind GIA (R26) to be effective 8/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20150814-5067.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2447-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Union Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2015-08-14_Union Electric Depreciation Rate Compliance Filing to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20150814-5082.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2448-000.

    Applicants: Prairie Breeze Wind Energy II LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Assignment, Co-Tenancy, and Shared Facilities Agreement to be effective 8/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20150814-5125.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2449-000.

    Applicants: Prairie Breeze Wind Energy III LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Assignment, Co-Tenancy, and Shared Facilities Agreement to be effective 8/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20150814-5126.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2450-000.

    Applicants: Prairie Breeze Wind Energy LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Assignment, Co-Tenancy, and Shared Facilities Agreement to be effective 8/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20150814-5128.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2451-000.

    Applicants: Maine Electric Power Company, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Construction Agreement between MEPCO and Number Nine Wind Farm LLC to be effective 8/13/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20150814-5129.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2452-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Attachment AE Section 3.9 Net Benefit Test Clean-up to be effective 3/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20150814-5179.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2453-000.

    Applicants: Passadumkeag Windpark, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based Rate Authority and Request for Waivers to be effective 9/18/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20150814-5182.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2454-000.

    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Certificate of Concurrence—TCRA to be effective 9/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20150814-5218.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2455-000.

    Applicants: Koch Energy Services, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/14/15.

    Accession Number: 20150814-5221.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/4/15.

    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 14, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20575 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-541-000] Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on August 5, 2015, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee), 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in in Docket No. CP15-541-000, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.203, 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to abandon by removal its two inactive supply laterals and associated appurtenances located in Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. Specifically, Tennessee request to abandon: (1) Line No. 521A-100 consisting of approximately 1,330 feet of 10-inch-diameter pipe and associated appurtenances and (2) Line No. 520A-300 consisting of approximately 36,739 feet of 10-inch-diameter pipeline and associated appurtenances all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Ben Carranza, Manager, Regulatory, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, by telephone at (713) 420-5535, by facsimile at (713) 420-1605, or by email at [email protected]com, or Debbie Kalisek, Regulatory Analyst, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, by telephone at (713) 420-3292, by facsimile at (713) 420-1605, or by email at [email protected]

    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and protest to the request, pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205). If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the “e-Filing” link. Persons unable to file electronically should submit original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20576 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13806-004-NH] 5440 Hydro, Inc; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for exemption from licensing for the Brooklyn Dam Hydroelectric Project, to be located on the Upper Ammonoosuc River, in the town of Northumberland, Coos County, New Hampshire, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). In the EA, Commission staff analyzes the potential environmental effects of the project and concludes that issuing an exemption for the project, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field, to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    For further information, contact John Ramer at (202) 502-8969 or [email protected]

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20578 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2165-067] Alabama Power Company; 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 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Non-project use of project lands and water.

    b. Project No: 2165-067.

    c. Date Filed: July 8, 2015.

    d. Applicant: Alabama Power Company (licensee).

    e. Name of Project: Warrior River Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: Lewis Smith Development (Smith Lake) of the Warrior River Hydroelectric Project located in Cullman, Walker, and Winston counties, Alabama.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a—825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: James F. Crew, Hydro Services Manager, Alabama Power Company, 600 North 18th Street, 16N-8180, Birmingham, Alabama 35203; phone (205) 257-4265.

    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Robert Ballantine at 202-502-6289, [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and seven copies should be mailed to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. 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.

    Please include the project number (P-2165-067) on any comments, motions, or recommendations filed.

    k. Description of Request: Alabama Power Company requests Commission approval to grant Curry Water Authority, Inc. a permit to use project lands and waters within the project boundary on Smith Lake for the construction of a raw water intake facility to withdraw up to 3.8 million gallons per day. A portion of the intake facility would be constructed within the project boundary, consisting of concrete encased columns supporting a pump house containing four vertical turbine pumps over the water (Latitude 33.999941, Longitude -87.283845); a 12 inch water main running from the pump house, and a 25 foot long by 10 foot wide walkway supported by piers. Also included in the construction would be a control building and a security fence located outside the 522 foot contour of the project boundary on land owned by the Curry Water Authority, Inc. off of Bluff Way Drive.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling 202-502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 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”; “PROTESTS”, 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). 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 14, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20577 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff will attend the following meeting related to the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO)—PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) Joint and Common Market Initiative (Docket No. AD14-3-000): MISO/PJM Joint Stakeholder Meeting—August 20, 2015.

    The above-referenced meeting will be held at: PJM Conference & Training Center, 2750 Monroe Boulevard, Audubon, PA 19403.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to the public.

    Further information may be found at www.pjm.com.

    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:

    Docket No. EL13-88, Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. EL11-34, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket No. EL14-21, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket No. EL14-30, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER11-1844, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. Docket No. ER13-1864, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER10-1791, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. Docket Nos. ER13-1923, ER13-1938, ER13-1943, ER13-1945, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket Nos. ER13-1924, ER13-1926, ER13-1927, ER13-1936, ER13-1944, ER13-1947, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket Nos. ER13-1937, ER13-1939, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER14-1174, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER14-1736, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket No. ER14-2022, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket No. ER14-2445, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket No. ER15-1874, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket No. ER15-1890, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    For more information, contact Valerie Teeter, Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8538 or [email protected]

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20463 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Lake Charles Liquefaction Project Docket No. Trunkline Gas Company, LLC CP14-119-000 Lake Charles LNG Company, LLC CP14-120-000 Lake Charles LNG Export Company, LLC CP14-122-000

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Lake Charles Liquefaction Project, proposed by Trunkline Gas Company, LLC (Trunkline), Lake Charles LNG Company, LLC, and Lake Charles LNG Export Company, LLC in the above-referenced dockets. Trunkline requests authorization to construct, install, and operate new natural gas pipeline facilities; modify certain existing pipeline facilities; and abandon one compressor unit in the states of Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana (collectively referred to as the Non-Liquefaction Facilities). Lake Charles LNG Company, LLC and Lake Charles LNG Export Company, LLC (collectively referred to as Lake Charles LNG) request authorization to site, construct, and operate new liquefaction facilities adjacent to an existing liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal located in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, and to construct and operate certain facility modifications at the existing LNG terminal. The new liquefaction facilities would have a design production capacity of 16.45 million metric tons of LNG per annum, which would provide an LNG export capacity equivalent to about 2 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas.

    Lake Charles LNG also requests authorization to abandon certain terminal facilities previously certificated under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) section 7; and convert such certificated facilities so that the entirety of the company's facilities and operations are authorized solely under NGA section 3.

    The final EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of construction and operation of the Lake Charles Liquefaction Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project would have some adverse environmental impacts; however, most of these impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of Lake Charles LNG's and Trunkline's proposed mitigation and the additional measures recommended in the final EIS.

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Transportation participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the final EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by a proposal and participate in the National Environmental Policy Act analysis. Although the cooperating agencies provided input on the conclusions and recommendations presented in the final EIS, the agencies will present their own conclusions and recommendations in their respective records of decision or determinations for the project.

    The Lake Charles Liquefaction Project includes:

    • Three liquefaction trains, each with a production capacity sufficient to produce 5.48 million metric tons per annum of LNG for export (each train would contain metering and gas treatment facilities, liquefaction and refrigerant units, safety and control systems, and associated infrastructure);

    • modifications and upgrades at the existing Trunkline LNG terminal;

    • about 0.5 mile of 48-inch-diameter feed gas line to supply natural gas to the liquefaction facility from existing gas transmission pipelines;

    • approximately 17.9 miles of 24- and 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline;

    • a new compressor station with a manufacturer's rating of 103,175 horsepower (hp), which equates to a site-specific rating of 98,685 hp (based on relative humidity and elevation);

    • abandonment of a 3,000-hp compressor unit, installation of a unit with a manufacturer's rating of 15,900 hp and site-specific rating of 15,002-hp unit, and piping modifications at one existing compressor station;

    • modification of station piping at three other existing compressor stations;

    • five new meter stations and modifications and upgrades of five existing meter stations;

    • modification of certain existing pipeline facilities; and

    • construction of miscellaneous auxiliary and appurtenant facilities.

    The FERC staff mailed copies of the final EIS to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners; other interested individuals and non-governmental organizations; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. Paper copy versions of this EIS were mailed to those specifically requesting them; all others received a compact disk version. In addition, the final EIS is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited number of hardcopies are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8371.

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search,” and enter the docket number(s) excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP14-119, CP14-120, and CP14-122). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676; for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20574 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board).

    SUMMARY:

    On July 9, 2015, the Federal Reserve published a notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 39433) requesting public comment to revise and extend the Banking Organization Systemic Risk Report (FR Y-15; OMB No. 7100-0352). The July 9 proposal would, among other revisions, collect information on short-term wholesale funding.

    On July 20, 2015, the Board adopted a final rule establishing a capital surcharge for the largest, most interconnected banks. In that final rule, the Board amended the July 9 proposal to conform the definition of short-term wholesale funding with the definition in the final rule. To allow interested persons to comment on the entire notice, the Board is extending the comment period of the July 9 proposal, to include the July 20 amendments to the proposed short-term wholesale funding collection, until October 19, 2015.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before October 19, 2015. The comment period for the proposed revisions and extension of the FR Y-15 published July 9, 2015 (80 FR 39433) is extended from September 8, 2015 to October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by FR Y-15, by any of the following methods:

    Agency Web site: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm.

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

    Email: [email protected] Include OMB number in the subject line of the message.

    FAX: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.

    Mail: Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.

    All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper form in Room 3515, 1801 K Street NW., (between 18th and 19th Street NW.), Washington, DC 20006 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.

    Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer, Shagufta Ahmed, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer, Nuha Elmaghrabi, Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.

    A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Request for Comment on Information Collection Proposal

    The following information collection, which is being handled under this delegated authority, has received initial Board approval and is hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collection, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:

    a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;

    b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, 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 information collection 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.

    Proposal To Approve Under OMB Delegated Authority the Extension for Three Years, With Revision, of the Following Report

    Report title: The Banking Organization Systemic Risk Report.

    Agency form number: FR Y-15

    OMB control number: 7100-0352.

    Frequency: Quarterly.

    Reporters: U.S. bank holding companies (BHCs) and savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs) with $50 billion or more of total consolidated assets and any U.S.-based organizations designated as global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) that do not otherwise meet the consolidated assets threshold for BHCs.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: One-time implementation: Savings and loan holding companies—1,000 hours; ongoing—54,536 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: One-time implementation: Savings and loan holding companies—1,000 hours; ongoing—401 hours.

    Number of respondents: 34

    General description of report: This information collection is mandatory and is authorized by the Dodd-Frank Act (sections 163, 165, and 604), the International Banking Act, the Bank Holding Company Act, and the Home Owners' Loan Act (19 U.S.C. 1462, 1467, and 3106).

    Abstract: The FR Y-15 report collects systemic risk data from U.S. BHCs and SLHCs with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, and any U.S.-based organization identified as a global systemically important bank (G-SIB) 1 based on data from the previous calendar year that does not otherwise meet the consolidated assets threshold for BHCs. The Federal Reserve uses the FR Y-15 data primarily to monitor, on an ongoing basis, the systemic risk profile of the institutions which are subject to enhanced prudential standards under section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (DFA).2

    1See 2014 update of list of global systemically important banks (G-SIBs), available at www.financialstabilityboard.org/wp-content/uploads/r_141106b.pdf.

    2 19 U.S.C. 5365.

    Current Actions: On July 9, 2015, the Federal Reserve published a notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 39433) requesting public comment for 60 days to revise and extend the FR Y-15 (July 9 proposal). The July 9 proposal would, among other revisions, collect information on short-term wholesale funding on proposed Schedule G. The proposed definition of “short-term wholesale funding” and weightings in the FR Y-15 proposal were based on the definition and weighting of “short-term wholesale funding” included in the Board's proposal to establish a capital surcharge for U.S. global systemically important bank holding companies (GSIBs), which was published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2014 (December proposal).3 On July 20, 2015, the Board adopted a final rule to establish a capital surcharge for GSIBs. Like the December proposal, the GSIB final rule incorporates a measure of short-term wholesale funding, but modifies that measure in response to comments.

    3 See 79 FR 75473 (December 18, 2014).

    In connection with the GSIB final rule, the Board is amending the July proposal to align the definition of proposed short-term wholesale funding with the definition in the final GSIB surcharge rule. The amendments to proposed Schedule G include (1) moving three line items to different tiers, (2) adding an item to capture firm short positions, (3) adding two automatically-calculated items, (4) adding one item derived from the FR Y-9C, (5) deleting two items, and (6) collecting customer short positions as part of the secured funding totals. The Board also extended the comment period on the proposed revisions to the FR Y-15 until October 19, 2015 to allow interested persons to comment on the entire notice, including the July 20, 2015, amendments to the proposed short-term wholesale funding collection.

    The Board estimates that these minimal differences will not affect the burden estimates provided in the July 9 proposal. The comment period for the proposed changes to the FR Y-15 proposal would also be extended to October 19, 2015, to allow commenters the opportunity to comment on the full proposal, including changes to the short-term wholesale funding measure adopted in this final rule. The Federal Reserve proposes the following revisions to the FR Y-15, which would be effective December 31, 2015:

    Schedule G—Short-Term Wholesale Funding Indicator

    Consistent with the calculation of short-term wholesale funding in the final rule, the Federal Reserve proposes to move unsecured wholesale funding obtained outside of the financial sector (item 2(b)) and retail brokered deposits and sweeps (item 2(c)) so that they are subcomponents of item 1, and to move unsecured wholesale funding obtained within the financial sector (item 4(a)) so that it is subcomponent of item 3.

    The final rule excludes firm short positions involving Level 1 and Level 2A securities from the short-term wholesale funding definition, and assigns a maximum weight of 25 percent to firm short positions involving Level 2B securities or securities that do not qualify as high quality liquid assets. To be consistent with this treatment, the Federal Reserve proposes adding firm short positions involving Level 2B liquid assets or non-high quality liquid assets (new item 1(d)). To simplify the reporting requirement, the Federal Reserve further proposes deleting short positions involving a Level 1 or Level 2A liquid asset (item 2(e)), removing shorts from other covered asset exchanges and short positions (item 3(b)), and collecting customer short positions as part of the secured funding totals.

    As a consequence of the aforementioned changes, the Federal Reserve also proposes adding total first tier short-term wholesale funding (new item 1(e)) to capture the total of items 1(a) through 1(d), and deleting total other short-term wholesale funding (item 4(c)) which is no longer needed.

    The final rule measures short-term wholesale funding as a percent of risk weighted assets. To capture this value, the Federal Reserve proposes adding average risk-weighted assets (new item 7) and short-term wholesale funding metric (new item 8) to the schedule.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 17, 2015. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20632 Filed 8-18-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 152 3202] Inbox Group, LLC; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Consent Agreement.

    SUMMARY:

    The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/inboxgroupconsent online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Inbox Group, LLC, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523202” on your comment and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/inboxgroupconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Inbox Group, LLC, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523202” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Monique Einhorn, Bureau of Consumer Protection, (202) 326-2575, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 17, 2015), on the World Wide Web at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 16, 2015. Write “Inbox Group, LLC, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523202” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

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

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

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

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

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Inbox Group, LLC, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523202” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before September 16, 2015. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment

    The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement applicable to Inbox Group, LLC (“Inbox Group”).

    The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.

    This matter concerns alleged false or misleading representations that Inbox Group made to consumers concerning its participation in the Safe Harbor privacy framework agreed upon by the U.S. and the European Union (“EU”) (“U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework” or “Safe Harbor Framework”). The Safe Harbor Framework allows U.S. companies to transfer data outside the EU consistent with EU law. To join the Safe Harbor Framework, a company must self-certify to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) that it complies with a set of principles and related requirements that have been deemed by the European Commission as providing “adequate” privacy protection. These principles include notice, choice, onward transfer, security, data integrity, access, and enforcement. Commerce maintains a public Web site, www.export.gov/safeharbor, where it posts the names of companies that have self-certified to the Safe Harbor Framework. The listing of companies indicates whether their self-certification is “current” or “not current.” Companies are required to re-certify every year in order to retain their status as “current” members of the Safe Harbor Framework.

    Inbox Group is a marketing agency that provides email, social media, and mobile marketing programs and services. According to the Commission's complaint, since at least January 2015, Inbox Group set forth on its Web site, http://www.inboxgroup.com/company/privacy/, privacy policies and statements about its practices, including statements related to its participation in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.

    The Commission's complaint alleges that Inbox Group falsely represented that it was a participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework when, in fact, Inbox Group was never a participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. Commerce has never included the company on its public Web site.

    Part I of the proposed order prohibits Inbox Group from making misrepresentations about its membership in any privacy or security program sponsored by the government or any other self-regulatory or standard-setting organization, including, but not limited to, the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.

    Parts II through VI of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part II requires Inbox Group to retain documents relating to its compliance with the Order for a five-year period. Part III requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part IV ensures the notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status. Part V mandates that Inbox Group submit an initial compliance report to the FTC, and make available to the FTC subsequent reports. Part VI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

    The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or order or to modify the order's terms in any way.

    By direction of the Commission.

    April J. Tabor, Acting Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20592 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 152 3141] Gold Connect, LLC; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Consent Agreement.

    SUMMARY:

    The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/golfconnectconsent online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Golf Connect, LLC, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523141” on your comment and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/golfconnectconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Golf Connect, LLC, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523141” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Monique Einhorn, Bureau of Consumer Protection, (202) 326-2575, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 17, 2015), on the World Wide Web at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 16, 2015. Write “Golf Connect, LLC, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523141” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

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

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

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

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

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Golf Connect, LLC, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523141” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before September 16, 2015. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment

    The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement applicable to Golf Connect, LLC (“Golf Connect”).

    The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.

    This matter concerns alleged false or misleading representations that Golf Connect made to consumers concerning its participation in the Safe Harbor privacy frameworks agreed upon by the U.S. and the European Union (“EU”) and the U.S. and Switzerland (collectively, “Safe Harbor Frameworks”). The Safe Harbor Frameworks allow U.S. companies to transfer data outside the EU and Switzerland consistent with EU and Swiss law. To join the Safe Harbor Frameworks, a company must self-certify to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) that it complies with a set of principles and related requirements that have been deemed by the European Commission and Switzerland as providing “adequate” privacy protection. These principles include notice, choice, onward transfer, security, data integrity, access, and enforcement. Commerce maintains a public Web site, www.export.gov/safeharbor, where it posts the names of companies that have self-certified to the Safe Harbor Frameworks. The listing of companies indicates whether their self-certification is “current” or “not current.” Companies are required to re-certify every year in order to retain their status as “current” members of the Safe Harbor Frameworks.

    Golf Connect provides a communication platform and software and technology services to the golf industry. According to the Commission's complaint, Golf Connect has set forth on its Web site, http://www.golfhub.com/CustomerService/PrivacyPolicy?lang+en, privacy policies and statements about its practices, including statements related to its participation in the Safe Harbor Frameworks.

    The Commission's complaint alleges that Golf Connect falsely represented that it was a “current” participant in the Safe Harbor Frameworks when, in fact, from April 2014 until April 2015, Golf Connect was not a “current” participant in the Safe Harbor Frameworks. The company's predecessor in interest had submitted its self-certification to the Safe Harbor Frameworks, but that self-certification had lapsed. Commerce subsequently updated the company's status to “not current” on its public Web site.

    Part I of the proposed order prohibits Golf Connect from making misrepresentations about its membership in any privacy or security program sponsored by the government or any other self-regulatory or standard-setting organization, including, but not limited to, the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework and the U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor Framework.

    Parts II through VI of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part II requires Golf Connect to retain documents relating to its compliance with the order for a five-year period. Part III requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part IV ensures notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status. Part V mandates that Golf Connect submit an initial compliance report to the FTC, and make available to the FTC subsequent reports. Part VI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

    The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or order or to modify the order's terms in any way.

    By direction of the Commission.

    April J. Tabor, Acting Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20595 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 152 3190] Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed consent agreement.

    SUMMARY:

    The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/dalejarrettracingconsent online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure, Inc., Consent Agreement; File No. 1523190” on your comment and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/dalejarrettracingconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure, Inc., Consent Agreement; File No. 1523190” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Monique Einhorn, Bureau of Consumer Protection, (202) 326-2575, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 17, 2015), on the World Wide Web at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 16, 2015. Write “Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure, Inc., Consent Agreement; File No. 1523190” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

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

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

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

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

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure, Inc., Consent Agreement; File No. 1523190” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before September 16, 2015. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment

    The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement applicable to Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure, Inc. (“Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure”).

    The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.

    This matter concerns alleged false or misleading representations that Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure made to consumers concerning its participation in the Safe Harbor privacy framework agreed upon by the U.S. and the European Union (“EU”) (“U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework” or “Safe Harbor Framework”). The Safe Harbor Framework allows U.S. companies to transfer data outside the EU consistent with EU law. To join the Safe Harbor Framework, a company must self-certify to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) that it complies with a set of principles and related requirements that have been deemed by the European Commission as providing “adequate” privacy protection. These principles include notice, choice, onward transfer, security, data integrity, access, and enforcement. Commerce maintains a public Web site, www.export.gov/safeharbor, where it posts the names of companies that have self-certified to the Safe Harbor Framework. The listing of companies indicates whether their self-certification is “current” or “not current.” Companies are required to re-certify every year in order to retain their status as “current” members of the Safe Harbor Framework.

    Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure is a race car driving school that offers consumers an opportunity to ride in and drive genuine stock cars with professional drivers, and was founded by NASCAR champion Dale Jarrett. According to the Commission's complaint, since at least January 2015, Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure set forth on its Web site, http://www.racingadventure.com/privacy.html, privacy policies and statements about its practices, including statements related to its participation in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.

    The Commission's complaint alleges that Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure falsely represented that it was a participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework when, in fact, Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure was never a participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. Commerce has never included the company on its public Web site.

    Part I of the proposed order prohibits Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure from making misrepresentations about its membership in any privacy or security program sponsored by the government or any other self-regulatory or standard-setting organization, including, but not limited to, the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework and the U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor Framework.

    Parts II through VI of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part II requires Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure to retain documents relating to its compliance with the Order for a five-year period. Part III requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part IV ensures the notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status. Part V mandates that Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure submit an initial compliance report to the FTC, and make available to the FTC subsequent reports. Part VI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

    The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or order or to modify the order's terms in any way.

    By direction of the Commission.

    April J. Tabor, Acting Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20593 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION SES Performance Review Board AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members to the FTC Performance Review Board.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vicki Barber, Chief Human Capital Officer, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2700.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Publication of the Performance Review Board (PRB) membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314 (c)(4). The PRB reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, and makes recommendations regarding performance ratings, performance awards, and pay-for-performance pay adjustments to the Chairwoman.

    The following individuals have been designated to serve on the Commission's

    Performance Review Board: David Robbins, Executive Director, Chairman Jonathan Nuechterlein, General Counsel Deborah Feinstein, Director, Bureau of Competition Jessica Rich, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection Michael Vita, Deputy Director, Bureau of Economics

    By direction of the Commission.

    April J. Tabor, Acting Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20459 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 152 3198] Jhayrmaine Daniels, d/b/a California Skate-Line; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed consent agreement.

    SUMMARY:

    The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/caliskatelineconsent online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Jhayrmaine Daniels, d/b/a California Skate-Line, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523198” on your comment and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/caliskatelineconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Jhayrmaine Daniels, d/b/a California Skate-Line, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523198” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Monique Einhorn, Bureau of Consumer Protection, (202) 326-2575, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 17, 2015), on the World Wide Web at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 16, 2015. Write “Jhayrmaine Daniels, d/b/a California Skate-Line, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523198” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

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

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

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

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

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Jhayrmaine Daniels, d/b/a California Skate-Line, Consent Agreement; File No. 1523198” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before September 16, 2015. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment

    The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement applicable to Jhayrmaine Daniels, d/b/a California Skate-Line (“California Skate-Line”).

    The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.

    This matter concerns alleged false or misleading representations that California Skate-Line made to consumers concerning its participation in the Safe Harbor privacy framework agreed upon by the U.S. and the European Union (“EU”) (“U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework” or “Safe Harbor Framework”). The Safe Harbor Framework allows U.S. companies to transfer data outside the EU consistent with EU law. To join the Safe Harbor Framework, a company must self-certify to the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) that it complies with a set of principles and related requirements that have been deemed by the European Commission as providing “adequate” privacy protection. These principles include notice, choice, onward transfer, security, data integrity, access, and enforcement. Commerce maintains a public Web site, www.export.gov/safeharbor, where it posts the names of companies that have self-certified to the Safe Harbor Framework. The listing of companies indicates whether their self-certification is “current” or “not current.” Companies are required to re-certify every year in order to retain their status as “current” members of the Safe Harbor Framework.

    California Skate-Line sells skating-related lessons and clothing, hosts events, and sponsors live performances. According to the Commission's complaint, since at least January 2015, California Skate-Line set forth on its Web site, http://caliskateline.com/index.php?col=3&page=privacy, privacy policies and statements about its practices, including statements related to its participation in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.

    The Commission's complaint alleges that California Skate-Line falsely represented that it was a participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework when, in fact, California Skate-Line was never a participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. Commerce has never included the company on its public Web site.

    Part I of the proposed order prohibits California Skate-Line from making misrepresentations about its membership in any privacy or security program sponsored by the government or any other self-regulatory or standard-setting organization, including, but not limited to, the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework and U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor Framework.

    Parts II through VI of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part II requires California Skate-Line to retain documents relating to its compliance with the Order for a five-year period. Part III requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part IV ensures the notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status. Part V mandates that California Skate-Line submit an initial compliance report to the FTC, and make available to the FTC subsequent reports. Part VI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

    The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed complaint or order or to modify the order's terms in any way.

    By direction of the Commission.

    April J. Tabor, Acting Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20594 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [Notice-2015-PM-03; Docket No. 2015-0002; Sequence No. 18] Notice of Public Meeting for the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Federal Bureau of Investigation Central Records Complex in Winchester County, Virginia AGENCY:

    General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, the GSA has prepared and filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), from May 2007, analyzing the environmental impacts of site acquisition and development of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Central Records Complex (CRC), in Winchester County, Virginia.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 21, 2015. The public may submit comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS during a 45-day public review and comment period beginning Friday, August 21, 2015, and ending on Monday, October 5, 2015. Instructions for submitting comments may be found under the heading Supplemental Information in this notice.

    Public Meeting: A public information meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 10, 2015 between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST), at the War Memorial Building Social Hall at Jim Barnett Park, located at 1001 East Cork Street, Winchester, VA 22601.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Courtenay Hoernemann, Project Environmental Planner, 20 N 8th Street, Philadelphia PA 19107 at 215-446-4710.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments by email to [email protected], or U.S. Postal Service to Courtenay Hoernemann, Project Environmental Planner, 20 N 8th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The proposed FBI facility would consolidate the FBI's records currently housed within the Washington DC area, in addition to field offices and information technology centers nationwide. The project requirements are for an overall square footage of 256,425 gross square feet, and will include the records storage building, support area, visitor's screening facility, service center, and guard booth. Parking is proposed at 427 spaces. A Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 8311 on February 17, 2015. A public scoping comment period was held for 30 days following publication of the Notice of Intent.

    The alternatives fully evaluated in the Supplemental Draft EIS include the No Action Alternative, the Arcadia Route 50 property, and Whitehall Commerce Center.

    The Supplemental Draft EIS incorporates by reference and builds upon the analyses presented in the 2007 Final EIS, and documents the Section 106 process under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (36 CFR part 800). The Supplemental Draft EIS addresses changes to the proposed action relevant to environmental concerns and assesses any new circumstances or information relevant to potential environmental impacts.

    The Supplemental Draft EIS has been distributed to various federal, state, and local agencies. The Supplemental Draft EIS is available for review on the project Web site http://www.fbicrc-seis.com. A printed copy of the Supplemental Draft EIS is available for viewing at the following libraries:

    • Handley Library, 100 West Piccadilly Street, P.O. Box 58, Winchester, VA 22604

    • Bowman Library, 871 Tasker Road, P.O. Box 1300, Stephens City, VA 22655

    • Smith Library, Shenandoah University, 718 Wade Miller Drive, Winchester, VA 22601

    Federal, state, and local agencies, and other interested parties, are invited and encouraged to be present or represented at the public meeting on Thursday, September 10, 2015. All formal comments will become part of the public record and substantive comments will be responded to in the Final Supplemental EIS.

    Public Comments: Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS can be submitted three ways: (1) Submit comments via the project email address: [email protected], (2) provide written comments during the public meeting, or (3) mail a comment form or letter to: Ms. Courtenay Hoernemann, Project Environmental Planner, 20 N. 8th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107. Written comments postmarked by October 5, 2015 will become part of the official public record.

    Public Meeting: The format will be open house with informational posters on display, and representatives from GSA and FBI will be available to explain the proposed project, answer questions, and receive comments from the public. Comment forms will be available for the public to provide formal written comments.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. John Hofmann, Division Director, Facilities Management & Services Programs Division, General Services Administration, Mid-Atlantic Region.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20532 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-89-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “Online Application Order Form for Products from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP).

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at [email protected]

    Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposed Project Online Application Order Form for Products From the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP)

    The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP is a vital resource helping the Agency achieve its mission to produce evidence to make health care safer, higher quality, more accessible, equitable, and affordable. HCUP is a family of health care databases and related software tools and products developed through a Federal-State-Industry partnership and sponsored by AHRQ. HCUP includes the largest collection of longitudinal hospital care data in the United States, with all-payer, encounter-level information beginning in 1988. The HCUP databases are annual files that contain anonymous information from hospital discharge records for inpatient care and certain components of outpatient care, such as emergency care and ambulatory surgeries. The project currently releases seven types of databases created for research use on a broad range of health issues, including cost and quality of health services, medical practice patterns, access to health care programs, and outcomes of treatments at the national, State, and local market levels. HCUP also produces a large number of software tools to enhance the use of administrative health care data for research and public health use. Software tools use information available from a variety of sources to create new data elements, often through sophisticated algorithms, for use with the HCUP databases.

    HCUP's objectives are to:

    • Create and enhance a powerful source of national, state, and all-payer health care data.

    • Produce a broad set of software tools and products to facilitate the use of HCUP and other administrative data.

    • Enrich a collaborative partnership with statewide data organizations (that voluntarily participate in the project) aimed at increasing the quality and use of health care data.

    • Conduct and translate research to inform decision making and improve health care delivery.

    This project is being conducted by AHRQ through its primary contractor and subcontractor, Truven Health Analytics and Social & Scientific Systems, Inc., pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the outcomes, cost, cost-effectiveness, and use of health care services and access to such services. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(3).

    Method of Collection

    The HCUP releases seven types of databases for public research use:

    (1) The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) is the largest all-payer inpatient care database in the United States, yielding national estimates of hospital inpatient stays. The NIS approximates 20 percent of the discharges from all U.S. community hospitals and contains data from approximately 8 million hospital stays each year. NIS data releases are available for purchase from the HCUP Central Distributor for data years beginning in 1988.

    (2) The Kids' Inpatient Database (KID) is the only all-payer inpatient care database for children in the United States. The KID was specifically designed to permit researchers to study a broad range of conditions and procedures related to child health issues. The KID contains a sample of 2 to 3 million discharges for children age 20 and younger from more than 3,500 U.S. community hospitals. KID data releases are available every third year starting in 1997.

    (3) The Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) is the largest all-payer Emergency Department (ED) database in the United States. It is constructed to capture information both on ED visits that do not result in an admission and on ED visits that result in an admission to the same hospital. The NEDS contains more than 25 million unweighted records for ED visits at about 1,000 U.S. community hospitals and approximates a 20-percent stratified sample of U.S. hospital-based EDs. NEDS data releases are available beginning with data year 2006.

    (4) The State Inpatient Databases (SID) contain the universe of inpatient discharge abstracts from data organizations in 46 States and the District of Columbia that currently participate in the SID. Together, the SID encompasse approximately 96 percent of all U.S. community hospital discharges. Most States that participate in the SID make their data available for purchase through the HCUP Central Distributor. Files are available beginning with data year 1990.

    (5) The State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases (SASD) contain encounter-level data from ambulatory surgery and other outpatient services from hospital-owned facilities. In addition, some States provide data for ambulatory surgery and outpatient services from nonhospital-owned facilities. Currently, 34 States participate in the SASD. Files are available beginning with data year 1997.

    (6) The State Emergency Department Databases (SEDD) contain data from hospital-owned EDs for visits that do not result in a hospitalization. Currently, 32 States participate in the SEDD. Files are available beginning with data year 1999.

    (7) A new database called the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) is planned for release in late 2015. The NRD is designed to support various types of analyses of national readmission rates. This database addresses a large gap in health care data—the lack of nationally representative information on hospital readmissions. The NRD is a calendar-year, discharge-level database constructed from the HCUP State Inpatient Databases (SID).

    To support AHRQ's mission to improve health care through health services research, HCUP databases and software tools are disseminated to users outside of the Agency through the HCUP Central Distributor at https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/tech_assist/centdist.jsp. The HCUP Central Distributor assists qualified researchers to access uniform research data across multiple states with the use of one application process. The HCUP databases disseminated through the Central distributor are referred to as “restricted access public release files”; that is, they are publicly available, but only under restricted conditions.

    This information collection request is for the activities associated with the HCUP database application process not the collection of health care data for HCUP databases. The activities associated with this application include:

    (1) HCUP Application. All persons requesting access to the HCUP databases must complete an application at https://distributor.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/. Applications for HCUP State databases require a brief description of the planned research use to ensure that the intended use is consistent with HCUP policies and with the HCUP Data Use Agreement. Paper versions of all application packages are also available for downloading at http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/tech_assist/centdist.jsp.

    (2) HCUP Data Use Agreement Training. All persons wanting access to the HCUP databases must complete an online training course. The purpose of the training is to emphasize the importance of data protection, reduce the risk of inadvertent violations, and describe the individual's responsibility when using HCUP data. The training course can be accessed and completed online at http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/tech_assist/dua.jsp.

    (3) HCUP Data Use Agreement (DUA). All persons wanting access to the HCUP databases must sign a data use agreement. An example DUA for the Nationwide databases is available at http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/team/NationwideDUA.jsp.

    HCUP databases are released to researchers outside of AHRQ after the completion of required training and submission of an application that includes a signed HCUP DUA. In addition, before restricted access public release state-level databases are released, AHRQ must review and approve the applicant's statement of intended use to ensure that the planned use is consistent with HCUP policies and with the HCUP Data Use Agreement. Fees are set for databases released through the HCUP Central Distributor depending on the type of database. The fee for sale of state-level data is determined by each participating Statewide Data Organization and reimbursed to those organizations. Information collected in the HCUP Application process will be used for two purposes only:

    1. Business Transaction: In order to deliver the HCUP databases and software, contact information is necessary for shipping the data on disk (or any other media used in the future).

    2. Enforcement of the HCUP DUA: The HCUP DUA contains several restrictions on use of the data. Most of these restrictions have been put in place to safeguard the privacy of individuals and establishments represented in the data. For example, data users can only use the data for research, analysis, and aggregate statistical reporting and are prohibited from attempting to identify any persons in the data. Contact information on HCUP DUAsis retained in the event that a violation of the DUA takes place.

    Estimated Annual Respondent Burden

    Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden associated with the applicants' time to order any of the HCUP databases. An estimated 1,300 persons will order HCUP data annually. Each of these persons will complete an application (10 minutes), the DUA training (15 minutes) and a DUA (5 minutes). The total burden is estimated to be 650 hours annually.

    Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the applicants' time to order HCUP data. The total cost burden is estimated to be $24,772 annually.

    Exhibit 1—Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    HCUP Application Form 1,300 1 10/60 217 HCUP DUA Training 1,300 1 15/60 325 HCUP DUA 1,300 1 5/60 108 Total 3,900 na Na 650
    Exhibit 2—Estimated Annualized Cost Burden Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Total burden hours Average
  • hourly
  • wage
  • rate *
  • Total cost
  • burden
  • HCUP Application Form 1,300 217 $38.11 $8,270 HCUP DUA Training 1,300 325 38.11 12,386 HCUP DUA 1,300 108 38.11 4,116 Total 3,900 650 na 24,772 * Based upon the mean of the average wages for Life Scientists, All Other (19-1099), National Compensation Survey: Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2014 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#b29-;0000
    Request for Comments

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20599 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Organizations: Voluntary Relinquishment From Schumacher Group Patient Safety Organization, Inc. AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Delisting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to b-26, (Patient Safety Act) and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2008, (73 FR 70732-70814), provide for the formation of Patient Safety Organizations (PSOs), which collect, aggregate, and analyze confidential information regarding the quality and safety of health care delivery. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ, on behalf of the Secretary of HHS, to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” by the Secretary if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. AHRQ has accepted a notification of voluntary relinquishment from Schumacher Group Patient Safety Organization, Inc. of its status as a PSO, and has delisted the PSO accordingly.

    DATES:

    The directories for both listed and delisted PSOs are ongoing and reviewed weekly by AHRQ. The delisting was effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on July 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Both directories can be accessed electronically at the following HHS Web site: http://www.pso.AHRQ.gov/listed.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eileen Hogan, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403-3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427-1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438-7231; TTY (local): (301) 427-1130; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery.

    HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when the PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs.

    AHRQ has accepted a notification from Schumacher Group Patient Safety Organization, Inc., a component entity of The Schumacher Group of Delaware, Inc., PSO, PSO number P0115, to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, Schumacher Group Patient Safety Organization, Inc. was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on July 7, 2015.

    More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site at http://www.pso.AHRQ.gov/index.html.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20598 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Organizations: Voluntary Relinquishment From Close Care Gap, PSO AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Delisting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to b-26, (Patient Safety Act) and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2008, (73 FR 70732-70814), provide for the formation of Patient Safety Organizations (PSOs), which collect, aggregate, and analyze confidential information regarding the quality and safety of health care delivery. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ, on behalf of the Secretary of HHS, to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” by the Secretary if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. AHRQ has accepted a notification of voluntary relinquishment from Close Care Gap, PSO of its status as a PSO, and has delisted the PSO accordingly.

    DATES:

    The directories for both listed and delisted PSOs are ongoing and reviewed weekly by AHRQ. The delisting was effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on July 2, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Both directories can be accessed electronically at the following HHS Web site: http://www.pso.AHRQ.gov/listed.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eileen Hogan, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403-3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427-1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438-7231; TTY (local): (301) 427-1130; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery.

    HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when the PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs.

    AHRQ has accepted a notification from Close Care Gap, PSO, a component entity of iCareQuality, Inc., PSO number P0145, to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, Close Care Gap, PSO was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on July 2, 2015.

    More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site at http://www.pso.AHRQ.gov/index.html.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20597 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Health Statistics (BSC, NCHS)

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee.

    TIMES AND DATES:

    11:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m., September 24, 2015. 8:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m., September 25, 2015. PLACE:

    NCHS Headquarters, 3311 Toledo Road, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782.

    STATUS:

    This meeting is open to the public; however, visitors must be processed in accordance with established federal policies and procedures. For foreign nationals or non-U.S. citizens, pre-approval is required (please contact Gwen Mustaf, 301-458-4500, [email protected], or Virginia Cain, [email protected] at least 10 days in advance for requirements). All visitors are required to present a valid form of picture identification issued by a state, federal or international government. As required by the Federal Property Management Regulations, Title 41, Code of Federal Regulation, Subpart 101-20.301, all persons entering in or on Federal controlled property and their packages, briefcases, and other containers in their immediate possession are subject to being x-rayed and inspected. Federal law prohibits the knowing possession or the causing to be present of firearms, explosives and other dangerous weapons and illegal substances. The meeting room accommodates approximately 100 people.

    PURPOSE:

    This committee is charged with providing advice and making recommendations to the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services; the Director, CDC; and the Director, NCHS, regarding the scientific and technical program goals and objectives, strategies, and priorities of NCHS.

    MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION:

    The agenda will include:

    1. Welcome remarks by the Director, NCHS 2. An update on health insurance coverage data 3. A presentation on the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the development of nutritional guidelines 4. A presentation on accessing NCHS data

    Requests to make oral presentations should be submitted in writing to the contact person listed below. All requests must contain the name, address, telephone number, and organizational affiliation of the presenter.

    Written comments should not exceed five single-spaced typed pages in length and must be received by September 11, 2015.

    The agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Virginia S. Cain, Ph.D., Director of Extramural Research, NCHS/CDC, 3311 Toledo Road, Room 7208, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782, telephone (301) 458-4500, fax (301) 458-4024.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20553 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001] Pediatric Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; 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 August 12, 2015 (80 FR 48325). Phenylephrine Hydrochloride was incorrectly linked to DUREZOL (difluprednate ophthalmic emulsion) 0.05% because they were both listed as item number 1 in the numbered list of products to be discussed at the meeting. Phenylephrine Hydrochloride Ophthalmic Solution is a separate stand-alone drug that will be reviewed by the committee and should be listed as item number 2. The other drugs in the numbered list should be renumbered accordingly. This document corrects that error.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa Granger, Office of Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9115.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In FR Doc. 2015-19729, appearing on page 48325, in the Federal Register of Wednesday, August 12, 2015, the following correction is made:

    On page 48326, in the first column, the numbered list is corrected to read as follows:

    1. DUREZOL (difluprednate ophthalmic emulsion) 0.05%,

    2. Phenylephrine Hydrochloride Ophthalmic Solution,

    3. ZYLET (loteprednol etabonate and tobramycin ophthalmic suspension),

    4. BETHKIS (tobramycin Inhalation Solution),

    5. INTELENCE (etravirine),

    6. PREZISTA (darunavir),

    7. VIRAMUNE XR (nevirapine),

    8. EPIDUO (adapalene and benzoyl peroxide),

    9. EXJADE (deferasirox),

    10. DOTAREM (gadoterate meglumine),

    11. FYCOMPA (perampanel),

    12. RECOTHROM (thrombin, topical [recombinant]),

    13. PREVNAR 13 (Pneumococcal 13-valent Conjugate Vaccine [Diphtheria CRM197 Protein]),

    14. PLEXIMMUNE,

    15. ELANA SURGICAL KIT (HUD),

    16. BERLIN HEART EXCOR PEDIATRIC VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICE (VAD),

    17. ENTERRA THERAPY SYSTEM, and

    18. CONTEGRA Pulmonary Valved Conduit.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Jill Hartzler Warner, Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20541 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-2986] Technical Document for Using the Inactive Ingredient Database; Establishment of a Public Docket AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; establishment of public docket; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, or the Agency) is announcing the establishment of a public docket to receive comments from interested parties on enhancing the utility and usability of the Inactive Ingredient Database (IID) (also known as the Inactive Ingredient Guide). These comments will help FDA identify best practices to assist Agency staff in designing the IID and maintaining the information contained therein. We intend to identify and further develop these best practices in a technical guide or draft guidance to be issued at a later date.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments by October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Giaquinto, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1670, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7930.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The IID provides information on inactive ingredients in FDA-approved drug products. An inactive ingredient, or excipient, is any component of a drug product other than an active ingredient (21 CFR 210.3(b)(8)). Generally, the IID identifies excipients that appear in approved drug products for a particular dosage form and route of administration.

    In September 2011, FDA created the IID Working Group to develop a set of questions and answers to facilitate use of the IID. During the development of questions and answers, FDA has worked with the International Pharmaceutical Excipients Council (IPEC Americas).1 FDA is opening a public docket to solicit comments from additional stakeholders on enhancing the utility and usability of the IID. FDA will then develop a comprehensive technical guide or draft guidance for industry and reviewers.

    1 See Meetings between FDA and the International Pharmaceutical Excipients Council (IPEC), available at http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/centersoffices/officeofmedicalproductsandtobacco/cder/ucm380688.htm.

    II. Establishment of a Public Docket and Request for Comments

    To help FDA identify and ultimately establish best practices and issue a technical guide or draft guidance, FDA is requesting public comments regarding the enhancement of the IID.

    FDA is requesting comments and supporting information, including proposed questions and proposed answers, on the following topics related to the IID:

    1. How can we improve nomenclature in the IID (e.g., use of preferred ingredient names and synonyms in the database)?

    2. How should we identify excipient amounts listed in the IID?

    3. How should we reflect updates to the current IID to ensure completeness and accuracy?

    4. Should we restructure the IID, and if so, how?

    5. Are there additional suggestions or comments for IID improvement?

    FDA will consider all comments submitted. FDA generally will not respond directly to the person or organization submitting the comment.

    III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20556 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-N-2099] Lisa Marie Coroniti: Debarment Order AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) permanently debarring Lisa Coroniti from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. FDA bases this order on a finding that Ms. Coroniti was convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product. Ms. Coroniti was given notice of the proposed permanent debarment and an opportunity to request a hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation. Ms. Coroniti failed to request a hearing. Ms. Coroniti's failure to request a hearing constitutes a waiver of her right to a hearing concerning this action.

    DATES:

    This order is effective August 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit applications for termination of debarment to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kenny Shade, Division of Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and Import Operations, Office of Regulatory Affairs (ELEM-4144), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Drive, Element Bldg., Rm. 4144, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-796-4640.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(a)(2)(B)) requires debarment of an individual if FDA finds that the individual has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of any drug product under the FD&C Act.

    On April 8, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered judgment against Ms. Coroniti for one count of introducing misbranded drugs into interstate commerce, in violation of sections 301(a) and 303(a)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and 333(a)(2)).

    FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the felony conviction referenced herein. The factual basis for this conviction is as follows: Ms. Coroniti was a sales representative for Gallant Pharma International Inc. (Gallant Pharma) between June 2011 and August 2013, and was responsible for selling injectable cosmetic drugs and devices, and intravenous chemotherapy drugs, to doctors and hospitals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Some of the drugs Ms. Coroniti facilitated the sale of were misbranded within the meaning of the FD&C Act.

    Ms. Coroniti admitted that she sold drugs which were not approved by the FDA for use on patients in the United States. She further admitted that the drugs she sold on behalf of Gallant Pharma were misbranded in that they did not bear adequate directions for use and were not subject to an exemption from that requirement, and they were accompanied by non-FDA approved packaging and inserts.

    Between June 2011 and August 2013, Ms. Coroniti admitted to selling misbranded drugs to 15 distinct doctors and medical practices in Pennsylvania and generated more than $1.1 million in illegal proceeds from these sales. She admitted that, as of April 26, 2013, she became willfully blind to the illegality of Gallant Pharma's business. Nonetheless, she continued her sales activity with Gallant Pharma until her arrest in August 2013.

    Between April 26, 2013, and August 7, 2013, Ms. Coroniti personally sold more than $367,000 in misbranded drugs and devices to doctors and medical practices in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, area. On or about July 30, 2013, Ms. Coroniti sold five vials of misbranded BOTOX to a doctor in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in exchange for $1,900.00, thereby causing a misbranded drug to be introduced into interstate commerce. She further admitted that the loss amount attributable to her personal sales was between $200,000 and $400,000.

    As a result of her conviction, on March 25, 2015, FDA sent Ms. Coroniti a notice by certified mail proposing to permanently debar her from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. The proposal was based on the finding, under section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, that Ms. Coroniti was convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct related to the regulation of a drug product. FDA determined that Ms. Coroniti's felony conviction was related to the regulation of drug products because the conduct underlying her conviction, including intentionally introducing into interstate commerce misbranded drug products, undermined FDA's regulatory oversight over drug products marketed in the United States. The proposal also offered Ms. Coroniti an opportunity to request a hearing, providing her 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and advised her that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this action. The proposal was received on May 1, 2015. Ms. Coroniti failed to respond within the timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore, waived her opportunity for a hearing and has waived any contentions concerning her debarment (21 CFR part 12).

    II. Findings and Order

    Therefore, the Director, Office of Enforcement and Import Operations, Office of Regulatory Affairs, under section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, under authority delegated to the Director (Staff Manual Guide 1410.35), finds that Lisa Marie Coroniti has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product. Section 306(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(2)(A)(ii)) requires that Ms.Coroniti's debarment be permanent.

    As a result of the foregoing findings, Lisa Marie Coroniti is permanently debarred from providing services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application under sections 505, 512, or 802 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), effective (see DATES) (see section 201(dd), 306(c)(1)(B), and 306(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act, (21 U.S.C. 321(dd), 335a(c)(1)(B), and 335a(c)(2)(A)(ii)). Any person with an approved or pending drug product application who knowingly employs or retains as a consultant or contractor, or otherwise uses the services of Lisa Marie Coroniti, in any capacity during her debarment, will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(6) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335b(a)(6))). If Ms. Coroniti provides services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application during her period of debarment she will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(7) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335b(a)(7))). In addition, FDA will not accept or review any abbreviated new drug applications submitted by or with the assistance of Lisa Marie Coroniti during her period of debarment (section 306(c)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(1)(A))).

    Any application by Ms. Coroniti for special termination of debarment under section 306(d)(4) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(d)(4)) should be identified with Docket No. FDA-2014-N-2099 and sent to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). All such submissions are to be filed in four copies. The public availability of information in these submissions is governed by 21 CFR 10.20.

    Publicly available submissions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20561 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-2768] Collecting On-Farm Antimicrobial Use and Resistance Data; Public Meeting; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting; request for comments.

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is announcing plans for a jointly sponsored public meeting to obtain public input on possible approaches for collecting additional on-farm antimicrobial drug use and resistance data. Such data are important for assessing the impact of measures being implemented to foster the judicious use of medically important antimicrobial drugs in food-producing animals.

    Date and Time: The public meeting will be held September 30, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Although you can comment on the interagency plan for collecting on-farm antimicrobial drug use and resistance data at any time, to ensure that the Agencies consider your comment before updating this plan, submit either electronic or written comments by November 30, 2015.

    Location: The public meeting will be held in the USDA Jefferson Auditorium (South Building), 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250. Please arrive between 7 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. to provide time to get through security. Attendees must provide a valid government issued photo ID (Driver's License, Identification Card, or Passport) to enter the facility. Attendees should enter the building via Wing 5 on the Independence Avenue side of the building. The South Building is accessible by the Smithsonian Metro station (exit Metro station through the “Independence Avenue Exit” and walk toward 15th Street on Independence Avenue to reach Wing 5). For more information on directions and parking, visit http://smithsonianassociates.org/ticketing/help/locations/jefferson.htm.

    Contact Person: Kelly Covington, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-6), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5661, FAX: 240-276-9020, email: [email protected]

    Registration and Requests for Oral Presentations: Registration is required for this public meeting. Please send registration information (including name, title, organization, address, telephone and fax numbers) by email to [email protected] by September 18, 2015. There is no fee to register for the public meeting, and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kelly Covington (see Contact Person) at least 7 days in advance.

    Oral presentations can be made by members of the public during the open public comment period of the public meeting. These presentations will be scheduled between approximately 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. on September 30, 2015. Those persons desiring to make an oral presentation should notify the contact person listed in this notice by September 16, 2015, and submit a brief statement of the general nature of information they wish to present. In an effort to accommodate all who desire to speak, time allotted for each presentation may be limited. The contact person will inform each speaker prior to the meeting of the time they are scheduled to speak.

    Comments: Regardless of attendance at the public meeting, interested persons may submit either electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, by (see Date and Time). 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.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Antimicrobial drugs have been widely used in human and veterinary medicine for more than 50 years, with tremendous benefits to both human and animal health. The development of resistance to this important class of drugs, and the resulting loss of their effectiveness as antimicrobial therapies, poses a serious threat to public and animal health. Because antimicrobial drug use can contribute to the emergence of drug-resistant organisms, these important drugs must be used judiciously in both animal and human medicine to slow the development of resistance.

    In December 2013, FDA published Guidance for Industry (GFI) #213 (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM299624.pdf), which calls on animal drug sponsors of approved medically important antimicrobials administered through medicated feed or water to voluntarily remove production (growth promotion and feed efficiency) uses from their product labels, and bring the remaining therapeutic uses of these products (to treat, control, or prevent disease) under the oversight of a veterinarian by the end of December 2016. All 25 affected drug sponsors have committed to implementing the changes described in GFI #213 by the December 2016 target date. Once the changes are fully implemented, it will be illegal to use these medically important antibiotics for production purposes, and animal producers will need to obtain authorization from a licensed veterinarian to use them for prevention, control, or treatment of a specifically identified disease.

    On March 27, 2015, the White House released the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-resistant Bacteria (“National Action Plan”) (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/national_action_plan_for_combating_antibotic-resistant_bacteria.pdf). Developed in response to Executive Order 13676, which was issued by President Barack Obama on September 18, 2014, the National Action Plan is intended to guide the activities of the U.S. Government as well as the actions of public health, health care, and veterinary partners in a common effort to address the urgent and serious public health threat of drug-resistant bacterial infections. Objective 2.4 of the National Action Plan is to enhance monitoring of antibiotic resistance patterns, as well as antibiotic sales, usage, and management practices, at multiple points in the production chain for food animals and retail meat. The public meeting being announced in this Federal Register notice is consistent with Sub-Objective 2.4.3 of the National Action Plan, which calls for the USDA and FDA to seek public input on a plan for collecting drug use and resistance data on farms.

    In April 2015, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service published an Info Sheet entitled “Proposed Initiatives From the USDA Antimicrobial Resistance Action Plan” (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/amr/downloads/ProposedInitiatives.pdf). The Info Sheet provides a brief synopsis of initiatives proposed in the USDA Action plan, including a number of initiatives related to collecting on-farm antibiotic use and resistance data.

    Gathering information on the way medically important antimicrobials are used in food-producing animals is essential to measuring the impact of the FDA's GFI #213. FDA is collaborating with USDA and CDC to develop a plan for collecting additional on-farm data on antimicrobial use and resistance. Such data are intended to supplement existing information, including data on the quantity of antimicrobials sold or distributed for use in food-producing animals (reported under section 105 of the Animal Drug User Fee Amendments of 2008) and data on antimicrobial resistance (e.g., collected under the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System and the National Animal Health Monitoring System). Data from multiple sources are needed to provide a comprehensive and science-based picture of antimicrobial drug use and resistance in animal agriculture.

    A data collection plan is needed to obtain additional information necessary to: (1) Assess the rate of adoption of changes outlined in the FDA's GFI #213; (2) help gauge the success of antibiotic stewardship efforts and guide their continued evolution and optimization; and (3) assess associations between antibiotic use practices and resistance. FDA is continuing to work with the USDA and CDC in developing this plan, and is holding this public meeting in order to obtain input from the public. This meeting is the first opportunity for public input as part of our ongoing effort to develop and implement plans for collecting additional on-farm antimicrobial drug use and resistance data.

    II. Agenda

    The public meeting will provide an opportunity for public comment on possible approaches for collecting additional antimicrobial drug use data. The final agenda for the public meeting will be made available on the Agency's Web site at

    http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferencesMeetings/ucm456380.htm no later than 2 weeks prior to the meeting.

    III. Transcript

    FDA will prepare a meeting transcript and make it available on the Agency's Web site (see section II) after the meeting. FDA anticipates that the transcript will be available approximately 60 business days after the meeting. A copy of the transcript will be available for public examination at the Division of Dockets Management (see Comments) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. In addition, copies of the transcript will be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM after submission of a Freedom of Information request. The Freedom of Information office address is available on the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20557 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001] Bone, Reproductive, and Urologic Drugs 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: Bone, Reproductive, and Urologic Drugs 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 November 3, 2015, from 8:30 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: Kalyani Bhatt, 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) 207959, enclomiphene citrate 12.5 milligram (mg) and 25 mg capsules, submitted by Repros Therapeutics, Inc., for the proposed treatment of secondary hypogonadism in fertile men (men with more than 15 million sperm/milliliter (ml)), younger than 60 years of age with a Body Mass Index (BMI) over 25 kilograms (kg)/meters squared (m2).

    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 20, 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 October 9, 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 13, 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 Kalyani Bhatt 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 14, 2015. Jill Hartzler Warner, Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20540 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0232] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Comment Request; Interstate Shellfish Dealers Certificate AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on our proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the information collection provisions of the Interstate Shellfish Dealers Certificate.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the 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. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, we invite comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA'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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Interstate Shellfish Dealer's Certificate OMB Control Number 0910-0021—Extension

    Under 42 U.S.C. 243, we are required to cooperate with and aid State and local authorities in the enforcement of their health regulations and are authorized to assist States in the prevention and suppression of communicable diseases. Under this authority, we participate with State regulatory agencies, some foreign nations, and the molluscan shellfish industry in the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP).

    NSSP is a voluntary, cooperative program to promote the safety of molluscan shellfish by providing for the classification and patrol of shellfish growing waters and for the inspection and certification of shellfish processors. Each participating State and foreign nation monitors its molluscan shellfish processors and issues certificates for those that meet the State or foreign shellfish control authority's criteria. Each participating State and nation provides a certificate of its certified shellfish processors to FDA on Form FDA 3038, “Interstate Shellfish Dealer's Certificate.” We use this information to publish the “Interstate Certified Shellfish Shippers List,” a monthly comprehensive listing of all molluscan shellfish processors certified under the cooperative program. If we did not collect the information necessary to compile this list, participating States would not be able to identify and keep out shellfish processed by uncertified processors in other States and foreign nations. Consequently, NSSP would not be able to control the distribution of uncertified and possibly unsafe shellfish in interstate commerce, and its effectiveness would be nullified.

    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Activity FDA Form No. Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    Submission of Interstate Shellfish Dealer's Certificate 3038 40 57 2,280 0.10
  • (6 minutes)
  • 228
    1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    We estimate that 40 respondents will submit 2,280 Interstate Shellfish Dealer's Certificates annually, for a total burden of 228 hours (2,280 submissions × 0.10 hours = 228 hours). This estimate is based on our experience with this information collection and the number of certificates received in the past 3 years, which has remained constant.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20562 Filed 8-19-15; 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; Identifying Experts in Prevention Science Methods To Include on NIH Review Panels (OD) SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Office of Disease Prevention (ODP) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2015, page 18641 and allowed 60 days for public comment. No public comments were received. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment. The 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, Attn: NIH Desk Officer.

    DATES:

    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: Paris Watson, Senior Advisor, NIH Office of Disease Prevention, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 2B03, Bethesda, MD 20892 or call (301) 496-1508 or email your request, including your address to [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    Proposed Collection: Identifying Experts in Prevention Science Methods to Include on NIH Review Panels, 0925—New, Office of Disease Prevention (ODP), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: The Office of Disease Prevention (ODP) is the lead Office at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) responsible for assessing, facilitating, and stimulating research in disease prevention and health promotion, and disseminating the results of this research to improve public health. Prevention is preferable to treatment, and research on disease prevention is an important part of the NIH's mission. The knowledge gained from this research leads to stronger clinical practice, health policy, and community health programs. ODP collaborates with NIH, other Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) agencies, and other public and private partners to achieve the Office's mission and goals. One of our priorities is to promote the use of the best available methods in prevention research and support the development of better methods. One of our strategies is to help NIH Scientific Review Officers (SROs) identify experts in prevention science methods to include on their review panels. This will strengthen the panels and improve the quality of the prevention research supported by NIH. To identify experts in prevention science methods, we worked with our contractor, IQ Solutions, Inc., to develop online software which will allow us to collect researchers' names, contact information, and resumes, as well as to have those researchers identify their level of expertise in a variety of prevention science methods and content areas. The data collected with this software will be used to support a web-based Electronic Directory that SROs can use to identify researchers with expertise in specific prevention science methods and content areas for invitation to serve on one of the NIH review panels. If the initial rollout with the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) is successful, this system will also be shared with review staff in the other Institutes and Centers at NIH, as well as other DHHS agencies, to use in a similar same way. Given our plans to create an automated system for reviewer information collection, we are now seeking OMB approval. This PRA clearance request is for the deployment of this new online software and the collection of data.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 1,040.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average time per response
  • (in hours)
  • Total annual burden hour
    Investigators 3,120 1 20/60 1040
    Dated: August 13, 2015. Lawrence A. Tabak, Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20591 Filed 8-19-15; 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 Advisory Committee to the Director, National Institutes of Health.

    This meeting is open to the public but is being held by teleconference only. No physical meeting location is provided for any interested individuals to listen to and/or participate in the meeting. Any individual interested in listening to the meeting discussions must call: 877-917-9486 and use Passcode: 8027865 for access to the meeting. Individuals needing special assistance should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: Advisory Committee to the Director, National Institutes of Health.

    Date: September 17, 2015.

    Time: 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: Report of the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) Working Group.

    Place: National Institutes of Health (Telephone Conference Call), Dial In Number 877-917-9486, Passcode: 8027865.

    Contact Person: Gretchen Wood, Staff Assistant, National Institutes of Health, Office of the Director, One Center Drive, Building 1, Room 126, Bethesda, MD 20892, Telephone: 301-496-4272, Email: [email protected]

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding their statement electronically to the Contact Person at [email protected] The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested of the interested person.

    Information will also available on the committee's home page: http://acd.od.nih.gov, where any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Anna Snouffer, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20516 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; 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 of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel.

    Date: September 15, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, Ph.D., Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892-9304, (301) 435-6680, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS) imposed by the review and funding cycle.
    Dated: August 14, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20517 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; 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 section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; “Understanding and Improving Reading Comprehension”.

    Date: September 9, 2015.

    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Marita R. Hopmann, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892-9304, (301) 435-6911, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 14, 2015. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20518 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.

    Project: Survey of State Underage Drinking Prevention Policies and Practices—(OMB No. 0930-0316)—Revision

    The Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act (the “STOP Act”) 1 states that the “Secretary [of Health and Human Services] shall . . . annually issue a report on each state's performance in enacting, enforcing, and creating laws, regulations, and programs to prevent or reduce underage drinking.” The Secretary has delegated responsibility for this report to SAMHSA. Therefore, SAMHSA has developed a Survey of State Underage Drinking Prevention Policies and Practices (the “State Survey”) to provide input for the state-by-state report on prevention and enforcement activities related to underage drinking component of the Annual Report to Congress on the Prevention and Reduction of Underage Drinking (“Report to Congress”).

    1 Public Law 109-422. It is assumed Congress intended to include the District of Columbia as part of the Report to Congress.

    The STOP Act also requires the Secretary to develop “a set of measures to be used in preparing the report on best practices” and to consider categories including but not limited to the following:

    Category #1: Sixteen 2 specific underage drinking laws/regulations enacted at the state level (e.g., laws prohibiting sales to minors; laws related to minors in possession of alcohol);

    2 Nine additional policies have been added to the Report to Congress pursuant to Congressional appropriations language or the Secretary's authority granted by the STOP Act.

    Category #2: Enforcement and educational programs to promote compliance with these laws/regulations;

    Category #3: Programs targeted to youths, parents, and caregivers to deter underage drinking and the number of individuals served by these programs;

    Category #4: The amount that each state invests, per youth capita, on the prevention of underage drinking broken into five categories: (a) Compliance check programs in retail outlets; (b) Checkpoints and saturation patrols that include the goal of reducing and deterring underage drinking; (c) Community-based, school-based, and higher-education-based programs to prevent underage drinking; (d) Underage drinking prevention programs that target youth within the juvenile justice and child welfare systems; and (e) Any other state efforts or programs that target underage drinking.

    Congress' purpose in mandating the collection of data on state policies and programs through the State Survey is to provide policymakers and the public with currently unavailable but much needed information regarding state underage drinking prevention policies and programs. SAMHSA and other Federal agencies that have underage drinking prevention as part of their mandate will use the results of the State Survey to inform federal programmatic priorities. The information gathered by the State Survey will also establish a resource for state agencies and the general public for assessing policies and programs in their own state and for becoming familiar with the programs, policies, and funding priorities of other states.

    Because of the broad scope of data required by the STOP Act, SAMHSA relies on existing data sources where possible to minimize the survey burden on the states. SAMHSA uses data on state underage drinking policies from the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's Alcohol Policy Information System (APIS), an authoritative compendium of state alcohol-related laws. The APIS data is augmented by SAMHSA with original legal research on state laws and policies addressing underage drinking to include all of the STOP Act's requested laws and regulations (Category #1 of the four categories included in the STOP Act, as described above, page 2).

    The STOP Act mandates that the State Survey assess “best practices” and emphasize the importance of building collaborations with federally recognized tribal governments (“tribal governments”). It also emphasizes the importance at the federal level of promoting interagency collaboration and to that end established the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD). SAMHSA has determined that to fulfill the Congressional intent, it is critical that the State Survey gather information from the states regarding the best practices standards that they apply to their underage drinking programs, collaborations between states and tribal governments, and the development of state-level interagency collaborations similar to ICCPUD.

    SAMHSA has determined that data on Categories #2, #3, and #4 mandated in the STOP Act (as listed on page 2) (enforcement and educational programs; programs targeting youth, parents, and caregivers; and state expenditures) as well as states' best practices standards, collaborations with tribal governments, and state-level interagency collaborations are not available from secondary sources and therefore must be collected from the states themselves. The State Survey is therefore necessary to fulfill the Congressional mandate found in the STOP Act.

    The State Survey is a single document that is divided into four sections, as follows:

    (1) Enforcement programs to promote compliance with underage drinking laws and regulations (as described in Category #2 above, page 2);

    (2) Programs targeted to youth, parents, and caregivers to deter underage drinking (as described in Category #3 above, page 2);

    (3) State interagency collaboration to implement prevention programs, state best-practice standards, and collaborations with tribal governments (as described above, page 4);

    (4) The amount that each state invests on the prevention of underage drinking in the categories specified in the STOP Act (see description of Category #4, above, page 2) and descriptions of any dedicated fees, taxes, or fines used to raise these funds.

    The number of questions in each section is as follows:

    Section 1: 31 questions Section 2A: 30 questions3

    3 Note that the number of questions in Section 2A is an estimate. This section asks states to identify their programs that are specific to underage drinking prevention. For each program identified there are six follow-up questions. Based on the average number of programs per state reported in the survey's four year history, it is anticipated that states will report an average of five programs for a total of 30 questions.

    Section 2B: 7 questions Section 2C: 6 questions Section 2D: 15 questions TOTAL: 89 questions

    It is anticipated that respondents will actually respond to only a subset of this total. This is because the survey is designed with “skip logic,” which means that many questions will only be directed to a subset of respondents who report the existence of particular programs or activities.

    This latest version of the survey has been revised slightly. There are no new questions, nor were any deleted. All revisions are for the purpose of clarifying the existing questions. The total number of questions remains the same, so no additional time burden should be placed on the respondents. All questions continue to ask only for readily available data.

    The changes can be summarized as follows:

    Some global changes have been made; for example, the current HHS and SAMHSA style guides are applied so that “state” and “federal” are not capitalized. In addition, some instruction sentences are put in bold font, in response to frequent questions from respondents for clarification of these questions. These include questions about the time period for which they are asked to report specific data, or the type of prevention programs that should be included in responses.

    In addition, the following specific changes are recommended as clarifications or improvements of existing questions:

    Part 1, Enforcement:

    A question requesting the total number of licensees in the state has been moved up to become the second question. It was previously located in the set of questions about state compliance checks, but was skipped if the respondent answered that the state does do not do compliance checks. The number of licensees is a general piece of information that could be very useful in analyzing survey response data, and therefore should be collected from all states, regardless of whether they conduct compliance checks.

    The wording of the question asking for the number of random compliance checks conducted by the state has been changed, and a definition of random checks is included. The current wording is confusing,4 and has often elicited an answer that reflects all licenses in the state, rather than the actual number of random checks. Respondents have also requested clarification of the definition of random checks.

    4 “Please provide number of licensees subject to random compliance checks/decoy operations.”

    Part 2A, Programs:

    Two changes have been made to shorten the length of program descriptions, in which states describe their underage drinking prevention programs. The program descriptions are the lengthiest portion of the survey response and are significant contributors to the length of the Report to Congress. In addition, the length of the responses may pose a burden on state respondents. The two changes are:

    (a) The instructions in the section have been modified to state: “Please briefly describe the program, including primary purpose, population served, and methods used.”

    (b) The number of programs reported on has been reduced from 15 to 10. In the 2014 survey, 43 states (84%) reported 10 or fewer programs. The burden on respondents from those eight states that report more than 10 programs could be reduced by limiting the responses to 10 programs.

    Part 2D, Expenditures:

    In response to the question about expenditures on school-based prevention programs, some respondents have reported all expenditures for K-12, which resulted in artificially inflated data. The following statement has been added to the instructions: “If it is not possible to distinguish funds expended specifically for the prevention of underage drinking from a general fund targeted to an activity or program listed below, please check `These data are not available in my state.' ”

    To ensure that the State Survey obtains the necessary data while minimizing the burden on the states, SAMHSA has conducted a lengthy and comprehensive planning process. It has sought advice from key stakeholders (as mandated by the STOP Act) including hosting an all-day stakeholders meeting, conducting two field tests with state officials likely to be responsible for completing the State Survey, and investigating and testing various State Survey formats, online delivery systems, and data collection methodologies.

    Based on these investigations, SAMHSA collects the required data using an online survey data collection platform (SurveyMonkey). Links to the four sections of the survey are distributed to states via email. The State Survey is sent to each state governor's office and the Office of the Mayor of the District of Columbia. Based on the experience from the last four years of administering the State Survey, it is anticipated that the state governors will designate staff from state agencies that have access to the requested data (typically state Alcohol Beverage Control [ABC] agencies and state Substance Abuse Program agencies). SAMHSA provides both telephone and electronic technical support to state agency staff and emphasizes that the states are only expected to provide data that is readily available and are not required to provide data that has not already been collected. The burden estimate below takes into account these assumptions.

    The estimated annual response burden to collect this information is as follows:

    Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Responses/
  • respondent
  • Burden/
  • response
  • (hrs)
  • Annual burden
  • (hrs)
  • State Questionnaire 51 1 17.7 902.7

    Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by September 21, 2015 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] Although commenters are encouraged to send their comments via email, commenters may also fax their comments to: 202-395-7285. Commenters may also mail them to: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, Washington, DC 20503.

    Summer King, Statistician.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20552 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS.

    ACTION:

    General notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) plans to conduct the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test, a National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) test concerning ACE export manifest capability. The ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test is a voluntary test in which participants agree to submit export manifest data to CBP electronically, at least 24 hours prior to loading of the cargo onto the vessel in preparation for departure from the United States. In most cases, CBP regulations require carriers to submit a paper manifest for export vessel shipments within 4 days after departure or for approved carriers to submit the outbound vessel manifest information electronically within 10 days after departure. This notice provides a description of the test, sets forth eligibility requirements for participation, and invites public comment on any aspect of the test.

    DATES:

    The test will begin no earlier than September 21, 2015 and will run for approximately two years. CBP is accepting applications for participation in this planned test until CBP has received applications from nine parties that meet all test participant requirements. Comments concerning this notice and all aspects of the announced test may be submitted at any time during the test period.

    ADDRESSES:

    Applications to participate in the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test must be submitted via email to CBP Export Manifest at [email protected]. In the subject line of the email, please use “ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test Application”. Written comments concerning program, policy, and technical issues may also be submitted via email to CBP Export Manifest at [email protected]. In the subject line of the email, please use “Comment on ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test”.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vincent C. Huang, Cargo and Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The National Customs Automation Program

    The National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) was established in Subtitle B of Title VI—Customs Modernization, in the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057, Dec. 8, 1993) (Customs Modernization Act) (19 U.S.C. 1411-14). Through NCAP, the initial thrust of customs modernization was on trade compliance and the development of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), the planned successor to the Automated Commercial System (ACS). ACE is an automated and electronic system for commercial trade processing which is intended to streamline business processes, facilitate growth in trade, ensure cargo security, and foster participation in global commerce, while ensuring compliance with U.S. laws and regulations and reducing costs for CBP and all of its communities of interest. The ability to meet these objectives depends on successfully modernizing CBP's business functions and the information technology that supports those functions. CBP's modernization efforts are accomplished through phased releases of ACE component functionality designed to replace a specific legacy ACS or paper function. Each release begins with a test and ends with mandatory use of the new ACE feature, thus retiring the legacy ACS or paper function. Each release builds on previous releases and sets the foundation for subsequent releases.

    Authorization for the Test

    The Customs Modernization Act provides the Commissioner of CBP with the authority to conduct limited test programs or procedures designed to evaluate planned components of the NCAP. The test described in this notice is authorized pursuant to the Customs Modernization Act and section 101.9(b) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 101.9(b)) which provides for the testing of NCAP programs or procedures. As provided in 19 CFR 101.9(b), for purposes of conducting an NCAP test, the Commissioner of CBP may impose requirements different from those specified in the CBP regulations.

    International Trade Data System (ITDS)

    This test is also in furtherance of the International Trade Data System (ITDS) key initiatives, set forth in section 405 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884, Oct. 13, 2006) (SAFE Port Act) (19 U.S.C. 1411(d)) and Executive Order 13659 of February 19, 2014, Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's Businesses. The purpose of ITDS, as stated in section 405 of the SAFE Port Act, is to eliminate redundant information requirements, efficiently regulate the flow of commerce, and effectively enforce laws and regulations relating to international trade, by establishing a single portal system, operated by CBP, for the collection and distribution of standard electronic import and export data required by all participating Federal agencies. CBP is developing ACE as the “single window” for the trade community to comply with the ITDS requirement established by the SAFE Port Act.

    Executive Order 13659 requires that by December 2016, ACE, as the ITDS single window, have the operational capabilities to serve as the primary means of receiving from users the standard set of data and other relevant documentation (exclusive of applications for permits, licenses, or certifications) required for the release of imported cargo and clearance of cargo for export, and to transition from paper-based requirements and procedures to faster and more cost-effective electronic submissions to, and communications with, U.S. government agencies.

    Current Vessel Cargo Export Information Requirements

    Under the CBP regulations (title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)), certain information must be submitted to CBP for vessels with export cargo leaving the United States for any foreign area, whether directly or by way of other domestic ports. Section 4.61 (19 CFR 4.61) requires the vessel master or other proper officer to execute a Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement on CBP Form 1300 filed with CBP pertaining to the outbound vessel. Section 4.63 (19 CFR 4.63) requires the vessel master, or the vessel's agent on behalf of the master, to file a vessel cargo manifest on paper CBP Form 1302-A, Cargo Declaration Outward With Commercial Forms, with copies of bills of lading or equivalent commercial documents relating to all cargo encompassed by the manifest attached in such manner as to constitute one document, with CBP at each port from which clearance is being sought.1 Section 4.75 (19 CFR 4.75), requires the vessel master, or the vessel's agent on behalf of the master, to file the complete vessel cargo manifest generally within 4 business days after clearance from each port in the vessel's itinerary. Section 4.76 (19 CFR 4.76) sets forth procedures and responsibilities of carriers filing outbound vessel manifest information via the Automated Export System (AES) in lieu of paper CBP Form 1302-A. Carriers that are approved to submit outbound vessel manifest information electronically in AES under 19 CFR 4.76 must, with limited exceptions, submit the complete manifest data within 10 calendar days after departure. Finally, section 192.14 (19 CFR 192.14) requires the U.S. Principal Party in Interest (USPPI) to file any required Electronic Export Information (EEI) for the cargo on the vessel.2 More details regarding the manifest requirements, the subject of this test, are provided in the next section.

    1 In addition to the filing of a vessel clearance statement and a vessel cargo declaration with manifest information and commercial documents, section 4.63 requires the filing of export declarations. The term “export declarations” refers to the Shipper's Export Declarations, the Department of Commerce paper forms used by the Bureau of the Census under the Foreign Trade Statistics Regulations to collect information from an entity exporting from the United States. These forms were used for compiling the official U.S. export statistics for the United States and for export control purposes. The Shipper's Export Declarations became obsolete on October 1, 2008, with the implementation of the Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR) and have been superseded by the Electronic Export Information (EEI) filed in the Automated Export System (AES) or through the AESDirect. See 15 CFR 30.1. See also 19 CFR 192.14, regarding required EEI.

    2 The USPPI is defined in the FTR as the person or legal entity in the United States that receives the primary benefit, monetary or otherwise, from the export transaction. Generally, that person or entity is the U.S. seller, manufacturer, or order party, or the foreign entity while in the United States when purchasing or obtaining the goods for export. 15 CFR 30.1.

    Current Vessel Cargo Manifest Requirements

    As indicated in the previous section, the vessel commander or agent must file copies of the vessel cargo manifest on CBP Form 1302-A. CBP Form 1302-A consists of the following data elements:

    (1) Name of Ship (2) Port where report is made (not required by United States) (3) Nationality of ship (4) Name of master (5) Port of loading (6) Port of discharge (7) Bill of Lading number (8) Marks and Numbers, Container Numbers, Seal Numbers (9) Number and kind of packages; Description of goods (10) Gross Weight (lb. or kg.) or Measurements (per HTSUS) (11) Internal Transaction Number (ITN) or AES Exemption Statement 3

    3 Though not a data element on CBP Form 1302-A itself, the carrier must include the ITN or AES Exemption Statement on the outward manifest pursuant to 19 CFR 192.14(c)(3). See also 19 CFR 4.63(b) requiring the number of the export declaration or exemption (replaced by the ITN or AES Exemption Statement as detailed in Note 1 above).

    The vessel cargo manifest may be filed in complete form or incomplete form (pro forma). The complete manifest must be filed with CBP before the vessel will be cleared to depart to a foreign country listed in 19 CFR 4.75(c). Otherwise, for shipments to a foreign country, an incomplete manifest may be filed with CBP at the departure port when accompanied by the proper bond. As provided in 19 CFR 4.84(c)(2), for shipments from any State or the District of Columbia to Puerto Rico, a complete manifest or proper bond shall be filed with CBP within one business day of arrival in Puerto Rico. As provided in 19 CFR 4.84(c)(1), for shipments from any State or the District of Columbia to noncontiguous territories of the United States other than Puerto Rico, or from Puerto Rico to any State or the District of Columbia to any other noncontiguous territory, a complete manifest or proper bond must be filed with CBP before departure.

    Under the terms of the bond, the complete manifest must be filed with CBP by the master, or the vessel's agent on behalf of the master, within the appropriate time period. For shipments to foreign countries, the complete manifest must be filed no later than 4 business days post-departure. For shipments from the United States to Puerto Rico, the complete manifest must be filed no later than 7 business days after arrival in Puerto Rico. For shipments between the United States or Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories, the complete manifest must be filed no later than 7 business days after departure.

    As mentioned in the previous section, under 19 CFR 4.76, certain carriers are approved to submit outbound vessel manifest information electronically in AES in lieu of submitting a paper CBP Form 1302-A. In most cases, these carriers must submit the complete manifest data within 10 calendar days after departure of the vessel from each port. However, if the destination of the vessel is a foreign port listed in 19 CFR 4.75(c), the carrier must transmit complete manifest information before vessel departure. Also, the time requirements for electronic transmission of complete manifest information for carriers destined to Puerto Rico and U.S. possessions are the same as the requirements found in 19 CFR 4.84 and described above.

    Trade Act and the Automated Export System (AES)

    Section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002, as amended (Trade Act) (19 U.S.C. 2071 note), requires CBP to promulgate regulations providing for the mandatory transmission of electronic cargo information by way of a CBP-approved electronic data interchange (EDI) system before the cargo is brought into or departs the United States by any mode of commercial transportation (sea, air, rail, or truck). The required cargo information is that which is reasonably necessary to enable high-risk shipments to be identified for purposes of ensuring cargo safety and security and preventing smuggling pursuant to the laws enforced and administered by CBP. Section 192.14 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 192.14) implements the requirements of the Trade Act with regard to cargo departing the United States.

    While the vessel cargo manifest described in the previous section must be submitted by the vessel commander or agent, that is, by the vessel carrier, 19 CFR 192.14 specifies that any required EEI must be filed by the USPPI. The USPPI or its authorized agent must transmit any required EEI using a CBP-approved EDI system, and verify system acceptance of this EEI no later than 24 hours prior to departure from the U.S. port where the vessel cargo is to be laden. The vessel carrier may not load cargo without first receiving from the USPPI or its authorized agent either the related EEI filing citation, covering all cargo for which the EEI is required, or exemption legends, covering cargo for which EEI need not be filed. The outbound vessel carrier then must annotate the vessel cargo manifest, waybill, or other export documentation with the applicable AES proof of filing, post departure, downtime, exclusion or exemption citations, conforming to the approved data formats found in the Bureau of the Census Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR) (15 CFR part 30).

    Description of the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test Purpose

    The ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test will test the functionality regarding the filing of export manifest data for vessel cargo electronically to ACE in furtherance of the ITDS initiatives described above. CBP has re-engineered AES to move it to an ACE system platform. The re-engineering and incorporation of AES into ACE will result in the creation of a single automated export processing platform for certain export manifest, commodity, licensing, export control, and export targeting transactions. This will reduce costs for CBP, partner government agencies, and the trade community and improve facilitation of export shipments through the supply chain.

    The ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test will also test the feasibility of requiring the manifest information to be filed electronically in ACE within a specified time before the cargo is loaded on the vessel. (Under the current regulatory requirements, in most cases the complete manifest is not required to be submitted until after the departure of the vessel). As described in the paragraph below, in the test, participants will submit export manifest data electronically to ACE at least 24 hours prior to loading of the cargo on the vessel. This will enable CBP to link the EEI submitted by the USPPI with the export manifest information earlier in the process. This capability will better enable CBP to assess risk and effectively target and inspect shipments prior to the loading of cargo to ensure compliance with all U.S. export laws.

    Procedures

    Participants in the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test agree to provide export manifest data to CBP electronically at least 24 hours prior to loading of the cargo onto the vessel in preparation for departure from the United States. If the vessel carrier files this ACE Export Manifest data, the filing is in lieu of the paper filing of CBP Form 1302-A and copies of bills of lading or equivalent commercial documents relating to all cargo encompassed by the manifest. If a freight forwarder or non-vessel operating common carrier (NVOCC) files the ACE Export Manifest data, the carrier is still required to file one of the following: the paper CBP Form 1302-A with copies of bills of lading or equivalent commercial documents relating to all cargo encompassed by the manifest attached in such manner as to constitute one document; the 19 CFR 4.76 electronic equivalent, if the vessel carrier is approved for this procedure; or the ACE Export Manifest data, if the vessel carrier is a test participant.

    The ACE Export Manifest data submission will be used to target high-risk vessel cargo. The data should be available to test participants early in the planning stages of an export vessel cargo transaction. It is anticipated that data provided no later than 24 hours prior to loading will permit adequate time for proper risk assessment and identification of shipments to be inspected early enough in the supply chain to enhance security while minimizing disruption to the flow of goods.

    Any vessel cargo identified as potentially high-risk will receive a hold until required additional information related to the shipment is submitted to clarify non-descriptive, inaccurate, or insufficient information, a physical inspection is performed, or some other appropriate action is taken, as specified by CBP. Once the cargo is cleared for loading, a release message will be generated and transmitted to the filer.

    Data Elements

    The ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test data elements are similar, but not identical to the data elements required on CBP Form 1302-A. The data elements are mandatory unless otherwise indicated. Data elements that are indicated as “conditional” must be transmitted to CBP only if the particular information pertains to the cargo. The ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo data elements are to be submitted at the lowest bill level. The data elements consist of:

    (1) Mode of transportation (Vessel, containerized or Vessel, non-containerized) (2) Name of ship or vessel (3) Nationality of ship (4) Name of master (5) Port of loading (6) Port of discharge (7) Bill of Lading number (Master and House) (8) Bill of Lading type (Master, House, Simple or Sub) (9) Number of house Bills of Lading (10) Marks and Numbers (conditional) (11) Container Numbers (conditional) (12) Seal Numbers (conditional) (13) Number and kind of packages (14) Description of goods (15) Gross Weight (lb. or kg.) or Measurements (per HTSUS) (16) Shipper name and address (17) Consignee name and address (18) Notify Party name and address (conditional) (19) Country of Ultimate Destination (20) In-bond number (conditional) (21) Internal Transaction Number (ITN) or AES Exemption Statement (per shipment) (22) Split Shipment Indicator (Yes/No) (23) Portion of split shipment (e.g. 1 of 10, 4 of 10, 5 of 10—Final. etc.) (conditional) (24) Hazmat Indicator (Yes/No) (25) UN Number (conditional) (If the hazmat indicator is yes, the four-digit United Nations (UN) Number assigned to the hazardous material must be provided.) (26) Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Registry Number (conditional) (27) Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) or Product Identification Number (conditional) (For shipments of used vehicles, the VIN must be reported, or for used vehicles that do not have a VIN, the Product Identification Number must be reported.)

    There are currently no additional data elements identified for other participating U.S. Government Agencies (PGAs) for the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test. However, CBP may enhance the test in the future with additional data or processing capabilities to assist with facilitation of vessel shipment movements and to be consistent with Executive Order 13659. Any such enhancement will be announced in the Federal Register.

    Eligibility Requirements

    CBP is limiting this test to nine stakeholders in the vessel cargo environment. Specifically, CBP is seeking participation from:

    • At least three, but no more than six, vessel carriers; and

    • At least three, but no more than six, freight forwarders or NVOCCs.

    There are no restrictions with regard to organization size, location, or commodity type. However, participation is limited to those parties able to electronically transmit export manifest data in the identified acceptable format. Prospective ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test participants must have the technical capability to electronically submit data to CBP and receive response message sets via Cargo-IMP, AIR CAMIR, XML, or Unified XML, and must successfully complete certification testing with their client representative. (Unified XML may not be immediately available at the start of the test. However, parties wishing to utilize Unified XML may be accepted, pending its development and implementation). Once parties have applied to participate, they must complete a test phase to determine if the data transmission is in the required readable format. Applicants will be notified once they have successfully completed testing and are permitted to participate fully in the test. In selecting participants, CBP will take into consideration the order in which the applications are received.

    Conditions of Participation

    Test participants agree to submit export manifest data electronically to CBP via an approved EDI at least 24 hours prior to the loading of the cargo onto the vessel in preparation for departure from the United States. In addition, test participants agree to establish operational security protocols that correspond to CBP hold messages that mandate the participant to take responsive action and respond to CBP confirming that the requested action was taken to mitigate any threat identified, respond promptly with complete and accurate information when contacted by CBP with questions regarding the data submitted, and comply with any “Do Not Load” instructions.

    Finally, test participants agree to participate in any teleconferences or meetings established by CBP, when necessary, to ensure any challenges, or operational or technical issues regarding the test are properly communicated and addressed.

    Participation in the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test does not impose any legally binding obligations on either CBP or the participant, and CBP generally does not intend to enforce or levy punitive measures if test participants are non-compliant with these conditions of participation during the test.

    Application Process and Acceptance

    Those interested in participating in the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test should submit an email to CBP Export Manifest at [email protected], stating their interest and their qualifications based on the above eligibility requirements. The email will serve as an electronic signature of intent to participate and must also include a point of contact name and telephone number. Applications will be accepted until CBP has received applications from nine parties that meet all test participant requirements. CBP will notify applicants whether they have been selected to participate in the test. Applicants will also be notified once they have successfully completed certification testing and are permitted to participate fully in the test. Test participants will receive technical, operational, and policy guidance through all stages of test participation, from planning to implementation, on the necessary steps for the transmission of electronic export manifest data.

    Costs to ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test Participants

    ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test participants are responsible for all costs incurred as a result of their participation in the test and such costs will vary, depending on their pre-existing infrastructures. Costs may be offset by a significant reduction in expenses associated with copying, storing, and courier services for presenting the paper manifest to CBP.

    Benefits to ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test Participants

    While the benefits to ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test participants will vary, several advantages of joining may include:

    • Reduction in costs associated with generating copies, transportation, and storage of paper manifest documentation;

    • Increases in security by leveraging CBP threat model and other data to employ a risk-based approach to improve vessel cargo security and to ensure compliance with U.S. export laws, rules and regulations through targeted screening;

    • Gains in efficiencies by automating the identification of high-risk cargo for enhanced screening and earlier identification of low-risk shipments;

    • The ability to provide input into CBP efforts to establish, test, and refine the interface between government and industry communication systems for the implementation of the electronic export manifest; and

    • Facilitation of corporate preparedness for future mandatory implementation of electronic export manifest submission requirements.

    Waiver of Certain Regulatory Requirements

    For purposes of this test, the requirement to file a paper CBP Form 1302-A, as provided in 19 CFR 4.63, 4.75, 4.82, and 4.87-89, will be waived for vessel carrier test participants that submit the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo data elements electronically as described above. For purposes of this test, the requirement to file copies of bills of lading or equivalent commercial documents relating to all cargo encompassed by the manifest attached in such manner as to constitute one document, as provided in 19 CFR 4.63(a)(1), will also be waived for vessel carrier test participants. If a freight forwarder or NVOCC submits the electronic ACE Export Manifest data, the vessel carrier is still required to file one of the following: The paper CBP Form 1302-A with copies of bills of lading or equivalent commercial documents relating to all cargo encompassed by the manifest attached in such manner as to constitute one document; the 19 CFR 4.76 electronic equivalent, if the carrier is approved for the electronic filing; or the electronic ACE Export Manifest data, if the vessel carrier is a test participant. The vessel carrier maintains responsibility for submitting the manifest data to CBP to cover all cargo on the vessel, even if the freight forwarder or NVOCC has also submitted manifest data.

    Participation in the test does not alter the participant's obligations to comply with any other applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including 19 CFR 4.63, 4.75, 4.82, and 4.87-89, and participants will still be subject to applicable penalties for non-compliance. In addition, submission of data under the test does not exempt the participant from any CBP or other U.S. Government agency program requirements or any statutory sanctions in the event that a violation of U.S. export laws or prohibited articles are discovered within a shipment/container presented for export destined from the United States on a vessel owned and/or operated by the participant.

    Duration and Evaluation of the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test

    The test will be activated on a case-by-case basis with each participant and may be limited to a single or small number of ports until any operational, training, or technical issues on either the trade or government side are established and/or resolved. The test will run for approximately two years from September 21, 2015. While the test is ongoing, CBP will evaluate the results and determine whether the test will be extended, expanded to include additional participants, or otherwise modified. CBP will announce any such modifications by notice in the Federal Register. When sufficient test analysis and evaluation has been conducted, CBP intends to begin rulemaking to require the submission of electronic export manifest data before the cargo is loaded onto the vessel for all international shipments destined from the United States. The results of the test will help determine the relevant data elements, the time frame within which data should be submitted to permit CBP to effectively target, identify, and mitigate any risk with the least impact practicable on trade operations, and any other related procedures and policies.

    Confidentiality

    All data submitted and entered into ACE is subject to the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905) and is considered confidential, except to the extent as otherwise provided by law. However, participation in this or any ACE test is not confidential and upon a written Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, the name(s) of an approved participant(s) will be disclosed by CBP in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552.

    Misconduct Under the Test

    If a test participant fails to abide by the rules, procedures, or terms and conditions of this and all other applicable Federal Register Notices, fails to exercise reasonable care in the execution of participant obligations, or otherwise fails to comply with all applicable laws and regulations, then the participant may be suspended from participation in this test and/or subjected to penalties, liquidated damages, and/or other administrative or judicial sanction. Additionally, CBP has the right to suspend a test participant based on a determination that an unacceptable compliance risk exists.

    If CBP determines that a suspension is warranted, CBP will notify the participant of this decision, the facts or conduct warranting suspension, and the date when the suspension will be effective. In the case of willful misconduct, or where public health interests or safety are concerned, the suspension may be effective immediately. This decision may be appealed in writing to the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, within 15 days of notification. The appeal should address the facts or conduct charges contained in the notice and state how the participant has or will achieve compliance. CBP will notify the participant within 30 days of receipt of an appeal whether the appeal is granted. If the participant has already been suspended, CBP will notify the participant when their participation in the test will be reinstated.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    As noted above, CBP will be accepting no more than nine participants in the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test. This means that fewer than ten persons will be subject to any information collections under this test. Accordingly, collections of information within this notice are exempted from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3502 and 3507).

    Dated: August 17, 2015. Todd C. Owen, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20614 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2015-0028] Gratuitous Services Agreement and Volunteer Release and Hold Harmless AGENCY:

    National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.

    ACTION:

    60-Day Notice and request for comments; new information collection request: 1670-NEW.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP), Protective Security Coordination Division (PSCD), Office for Bombing Prevention (OBP), will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until October 19, 2015. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and questions about this Information Collection Request should be forwarded to DHS/NPPD/IP/PSCD/OBP, 245 Murray Lane SW., Mail Stop 0612, Washington, DC 20528-0612. Emailed requests should go to [email protected] Written comments should reach the contact person listed no later than October 19, 2015. Comments must be identified by “DHS-2015-0028”and may be submitted by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov .

    Email: Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Gratuitous Services Agreement and Volunteer Release and Hold Harmless form will be provided to participants of OBP trainings. The participants will be emergency response personnel training with DHS OBP personnel. The collection of this information is necessary in the case that an individual who acts as a volunteer role player in support of official OBP training sustains an injury or death during the performance of his or her supporting role. If legal action is taken, this information can serve as a “hold harmless” statement/agreement by the Government. The purpose of the Gratuitous Services Agreement is to establish that no monies, favors or other compensation will be given or received by either parties involved.

    Analysis

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Office of Infrastructure Protection, Protective Security Coordination Division, Office for Bombing Prevention.

    Title: Gratuitous Services Agreement and Volunteer Release and Hold Harmless form.

    OMB Number: 1670-NEW.

    Frequency: Varies.

    Affected Public: Participants in OBP training, to include, but not limited to emergency response personnel, firefighters, police officers, emergency medical teams, and emergency management personnel.

    Number of Respondents: 1500 respondents (estimate).

    Estimated Time per Respondent: .2 hours.

    Total Burden Hours: 150 annual burden hours.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

    Total Recordkeeping Burden: $0.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining): $6,831.00.

    David Epperson, Chief Information Officer, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20615 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9P-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLNMA00000 L12200000.DF0000 15X L1010BP] Notice of Public Meeting, Albuquerque District Resource Advisory Council Meeting, New Mexico AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Public Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Albuquerque District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.

    DATES:

    The RAC will meet on Thursday, September 17, 2015, at the Albuquerque District Office, 100 Sun Avenue Northeast, Pan American Building, Suite 330, Albuquerque, New Mexico, from 9 a.m.-4 p.m. The public may send written comments to the RAC at the BLM Albuquerque District Office, 100 Sun Avenue Northeast, Pan American Building, Suite 330, Albuquerque, NM 87109.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carlos Coontz, 575-838-1263, BLM Socorro Field Office, 901 South Highway 85, Socorro, NM 87101. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8229 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 10-member Albuquerque District RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in New Mexico's Albuquerque District.

    Planned agenda items include updates on: Council term length, membership, and designation; the Rio Puerco Resource Management Plan; the Socorro Resource Management Plan five year evaluation; Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument; Datil Well Recreation Area; the Arizona Interconnection Project access roads permitting; and wilderness study areas. There will also be a discussion on the RAC's goals, field trip priorities, training, and future organizational preferences.

    A half-hour comment period during which the public may address the RAC will begin at 11 a.m. All RAC meetings are open to the public. Depending on the number of individuals wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.

    Andrew Archuleta, Acting Deputy State Director, Lands and Resources.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20572 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    On August 17, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in the lawsuit entitled United States and State of Maryland v. Arkema Inc., et al., Civil Action No.1:15-cv-02426.

    Under the proposed Consent Decree, Defendants Arkema Inc.; Bayer Cropscience, LP; FMC Corporation; Honeywell International, Inc; Lebanon Seaboard Corporation; Montrose Chemical Corporation of California; Occidental Chemical Corporation; Olin Corpration; Rhone-Poulenc; Rohm and Haas Company; Shell Oil Company; Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC; The Chemours Company FC, LLC; Union Carbide Corporation; Wilmington Securities, Inc.; and 21st Century Fox America, Inc., will: (1) Pay past response costs of $945,117.64 to the United States, (2) agree to pay future response costs to the United States, and (3) implement injunctive relief to perform the remedy set forth in the Record of Decision for Operable Unit 1 (“OU-1”) of the Central Chemical Site (“Site”) in Hagerstown Maryland. The proposed Consent Decree resolves the United States' claim for cost recovery under Section 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607, and the United States' and the State of Maryland's claims for injunctive relief under Section 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606, and Maryland Environment Code § 7-222, with respect to OU-1 of the Site. The Site is a former agricultural pesticide and fertilizer blending facility; OU-1 of the Site addresses contaminated soils, and principal threat wastes at the Site, including a former waste lagoon.

    Under the proposed Consent Decree, the United States and the State of Maryland covenant not to sue or take administrative action against Defendants pursuant to Sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA and Section 7003 of RCRA, for past and future costs paid, and injunctive relief performed, pursuant to the proposed Consent Decree.

    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States United States and State of Maryland v. Arkema Inc., et al., D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-2-1244/1. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:

    To submit comments: Send them to: By email [email protected]. By mail Assistant Attorney General
  • U.S. DOJ—ENRD
  • P.O. Box 7611
  • Washington, DC 20044-7611.
  • Under section 7003(d) of RCRA, a commenter may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area.

    During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: http://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. We will provide a paper copy of the Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    Please enclose a check or money order for $69.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $25.00.

    Robert D. Brook, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20580 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.

    The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.

    The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than August 31, 2015.

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than August 31, 2015.

    The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of July 2015. Del Min Chen, Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Appendix [66 TAA petitions instituted between 6/29/15 and 7/24/15] TA-W Subject firm
  • (petitioners)
  • Location Date of
  • institution
  • Date of
  • petition
  • 86135 Harrington Machine & Tool Co., Inc. (Company) Franklin, PA 06/29/15 06/26/15 86136 Verizon (Workers) Lake Mary, FL 06/29/15 06/26/15 86137 Dex Media (Union) Williamsville, NY 06/29/15 06/26/15 86138 Verizon (Workers) Richard, TX 06/29/15 06/25/15 86139 JMC Steel Group (Union) Whertland, PA 06/29/15 06/29/15 90000 Genpact (Workers) Wilkes Barre, PA 06/30/15 06/29/15 90001 Midland Credit Management (State/One-Stop) San Diego, CA 06/30/15 06/29/15 90002 Caterpillar Inc. (State/One-Stop) Peoria, IL 06/30/15 06/29/15 90003 QBE of the Americas (State/One-Stop) New York, NY 07/01/15 06/30/15 90004 RBS Citizens, National Association (State/One-Stop) Bridgeport, CT 07/01/15 06/29/15 90005 Genesis Healthcare (Workers) Albuquerque, NM 07/02/15 07/01/15 90006 Kanzaki Specialty Papers (Workers) Ware, MA 07/02/15 07/01/15 90007 Swiss International Airlines (State/One-Stop) East Meadow, NY 07/06/15 07/03/15 90008 ATOS IT Solutions and Services, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Purchase, NY 07/06/15 07/03/15 90009 Bechtel (State/One-Stop) Glendale, AZ 07/06/15 07/02/15 90010 Honeywell, Software Development Center (State/One-Stop) Lynnwood, WA 07/07/15 07/06/15 90011 Wilson Creek Energy LLC (Company) Friedens, PA 07/07/15 07/07/15 90012 Medical Information Management Solutions (State/One-Stop) Phoenix, AZ 07/08/15 07/07/15 90013 National Oilwell Vargo (Union) Springfield, OH 07/08/15 07/07/15 90014 Kinedyne (State/One-Stop) Lawrence, KS 07/08/15 07/07/15 90015 Startek USA, Inc. (Workers) Greeley, CO 07/08/15 07/07/15 90016 GrafTech USA LLC (Company) Saint Marys, PA 07/09/15 07/08/15 90017 Moneygram (State/One-Stop) Brooklyn Center, MN 07/10/15 07/09/15 90018 Eaton Corporation—Watertown (Company) Watertown, WI 07/10/15 06/23/15 90019 East Wind Code, Ltd. (Workers) New York, NY 07/10/15 07/08/15 90020 AT&T Mobility (Workers) Springfield, IL 07/10/15 07/07/15 90021 Digitec, Inc. (Company) Milford, NE 07/13/15 07/09/15 90022 Chemtura (Formally Known as Bio-Lab) (State/One-Stop) Adrian, MI 07/13/15 07/10/15 90023 WebCo (State/One-Stop) Sandsprings, OK 07/13/15 07/10/15 90024 QBE Americas (State/One-Stop) Irvine, CA 07/13/15 07/10/15 90025 Alorica (State/One-Stop) Tulsa, OK 07/13/15 07/10/15 90026 Abbott Medical Optics (State/One-Stop) Santa Ana, CA 07/13/15 07/10/15 90027 Kongsberg Power Products Systems Inc, Kongsberg Automotive (Company) Swainsboro, GA 07/14/15 07/13/15 90028 Mondelez International Bakery (Company) Philadelphia, PA 07/14/15 07/13/15 90029 Powerbar, Premier Nutrition (Workers) Boise, ID 07/15/15 06/19/15 90030 SimplexGrinnell LP d/b/a Tyco Fire Protection Product (Company) Westminister, MA 07/15/15 07/10/15 90031 CUDD Energy Services (Workers) Canton, PA 07/15/15 07/14/15 90032 International Rectifier (State/One-Stop) El Segundo, CA 07/15/15 07/14/15 90033 AT&T Telecommunications Relay Services (Workers) New Castle, PA 07/15/15 07/14/15 90034 AGFA Corporation (State/One-Stop) City of Industry, CA 07/16/15 07/15/15 90035 Airtex Products L.P. (Company) Fairfield, IL 07/16/15 07/15/15 90036 Bush Industries, Inc. of PA (Company) Erie, PA 07/16/15 07/15/15 90037 Bush Industries, Inc. (Company) Jamestown, NY 07/16/15 07/15/15 90038 Cleveland Lease Service (State/One-Stop) Cleveland, OK 07/16/15 07/15/15 90039 Compass Group/Flick at Mondelez (Workers) Wilkes-Barre, PA 07/16/15 07/15/15 90040 Kinze Mfg, Inc. (Workers) Williamsburg, IA 07/16/15 07/15/15 90041 Powerex, Inc. (Company) Youngwood, PA 07/16/15 07/15/15 90042 SECO/Warwick Corporation (Company) Meadville, PA 07/20/15 07/20/15 90043 Polyfusion Electronics Inc. (State/One-Stop) Lancaster, NY 07/20/15 07/17/15 90044 First Manufacturing Company, Inc. (State/One-Stop) Oceanside, NY 07/21/15 07/21/15 90045 Englobal (State/One-Stop) Tulsa, OK 07/21/15 07/20/15 90046 ConMed (Company) Centennial, CO 07/21/15 07/20/15 90047 AthenaHealth, Inc. (Company) Birmingham, AL 07/21/15 07/20/15 90048 Atmel (State/One-Stop) Colorado Springs, CO 07/21/15 07/20/15 90049 Muffett and Sons Fencing LLC (State/One-Stop) Zillah, WA 07/21/15 07/21/15 90050 Aegis USA Inc. (Workers) Fairmont, WV 07/21/15 07/17/15 90051 Worldwide Imports Inc. (State/One-Stop) Kent, WA 07/21/15 07/08/15 90052 Dyno Nobel Inc. (Union) Salt Lake City, UT 07/22/15 07/21/15 90053 Wheelock Manufacturing (Company) Morocco, IN 07/22/15 07/21/15 90054 Parallel Energy LP (State/One-Stop) Tulsa, OK 07/22/15 07/21/15 90055 Eastman Chemical/Solution Inc. (State/One-Stop) Springfield, MA 07/22/15 07/21/15 90056 Parker Hannifin Corporation (Company) Beaufort, SC 07/23/15 07/22/15 90057 Union Pacific Railroad (State/One-Stop) St. Paul, MN 07/23/15 07/22/15 90058 ICON Health & Fitness Inc. (Company) Ogden, UT 07/23/15 07/22/15 90059 Radiant Thermal Prods Inc. (Workers) Roselle, NJ 07/23/15 07/21/15 90060 Lenovo (State/One-Stop) Morrisville, NC 07/24/15 07/24/15
    [FR Doc. 2015-20539 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2014-0011] Impregilo Healy Parsons Joint Venture; Grant of a Permanent Variance AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In this notice, OSHA grants a permanent variance to Impregilo Healy Parsons Joint Venture from the provisions of OSHA standards that regulate work in compressed-air environments at 29 CFR 1926.803.

    DATES:

    The permanent variance specified by this notice becomes effective on August 20, 2015, and shall remain in effect until the completion of the Anacostia River Tunnel Project, but no later than December 31, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:

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

    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson, Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210; phone: (202) 693-2110 or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Copies of this Federal Register notice. Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice are available at http://www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register notice and other relevant information are also available at OSHA's Web page at http://www.osha.gov.

    I. Notice of Application

    On April 3, 2014, Impregilo Healy Parsons Joint Venture, (“IHP JV” or “the applicant”), 2600 Independence Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20003, submitted an application for a permanent variance and interim order under Section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“OSH Act”; 29 U.S.C. 655) and 29 CFR 1905.11 (“Variances and other relief under section 6(d)”) from several provisions of the OSHA standard that regulates work in compressed air at 29 CFR 1926.803. IHP JV also requested an interim order pending OSHA's decision on the application for a variance (Exhibit OSHA-2014-0011-0001, Request for Variance). Specifically, the applicant seeks a variance from the provisions of the standard that: (1) Prohibit compressed-air worker exposure to pressures exceeding 50 pounds per square inch (p.s.i.) except in an emergency (29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5)); 1 (2) require the use of the decompression values specified in decompression tables in Appendix A of the compressed-air standard for construction (29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1)); and (3) require the use of automated operational controls and a special decompression chamber (29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(iii) and .803(g)(1)(xvii), respectively).

    1 The decompression tables in Appendix A of subpart S express the maximum working pressures as pounds per square inch gauge (p.s.i.g.), with a maximum working pressure of 50 p.s.i.g. Therefore, throughout this notice, OSHA expresses the 50 p.s.i. value specified by § 1926.803(e)(5) as 50 p.s.i.g., consistent with the terminology in Appendix A, Table 1 of subpart S.

    According to its application, IHP JV is currently the general contractor for the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority's (“DC Water”) project to construct the Anacostia River Tunnel. The Anacostia River Tunnel project design requires the ability to safely perform hyperbaric interventions in compressed air at pressures higher than allowed in the existing OSHA standard 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5) which states: “No employee shall be subjected to pressure exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. except in emergency” (see footnote 1).

    The applicant is a contractor that works on complex tunnel projects using recently developed equipment and procedures for soft-ground tunneling. The applicant's workers engage in the construction of subaqueous tunnels below the water table through soft soils consisting of clay, silt, and sand using advanced shielded mechanical excavation techniques in conjunction with an Earth Pressure Balanced Tunnel Boring Machine (EPBTBM).

    IHP JV employs specially trained personnel for the construction of the tunnel, and states that this construction project uses shielded mechanical-excavation techniques. IHP JV asserts that its workers perform hyperbaric interventions at pressures greater than 50 p.s.i.g. in the excavation chamber of the EPBTBM. The hyperbaric interventions consist of conducting inspections and maintenance work on the cutter-head structure and cutting tools of the EPBTBM.

    OSHA considered IHP JV's application for a permanent variance and interim order. On February 11, 2015, OSHA published a preliminary Federal Register notice announcing IHP JV's application for a permanent variance and interim order, grant of an interim order, and request for comments (80 FR 7636) for the Anacostia River Tunnel project.

    II. The Variance Application A. Background

    IHP JV asserts that innovations in tunnel excavation, specifically with EPBTBMs, have, in most cases, eliminated the need to pressurize the entire tunnel. These advances in technology modified substantially the methods used by the construction industry to excavate subaqueous tunnels compared to the caisson work regulated by the current OSHA compressed-air standard for construction at 29 CFR 1926.803. Such advances reduce the number of workers exposed, and the total duration of exposure, to hyperbaric pressure during tunnel construction.

    Using shielded mechanical-excavation techniques, in conjunction with precast concrete tunnel liners and backfill grout, EPBTBMs provide methods to achieve the face pressures required to maintain a stabilized tunnel face through various geologies, and isolate that pressure to the forward section (the working chamber) of the EPBTBM. Interventions in the working chamber take place only after halting tunnel excavation and preparing the machine and crew for an intervention. Interventions occur to inspect or maintain the mechanical-excavation components located in the working chamber. Maintenance conducted in the working chamber includes changing replaceable cutting tools and disposable wear bars, and, in rare cases, repairing structural damage to the cutter head.

    In addition to innovations in tunnel-excavation methods, research conducted after OSHA published its compressed-air standard for construction in 1971, resulted in advances in hyperbaric medicine. In this regard, the applicant asserts that the use of decompression protocols incorporating oxygen is more efficient, effective, and safer for tunnel workers than compliance with the existing OSHA standard (29 CFR 1926, subpart S, Appendix A decompression tables). According to the applicant, contractors routinely and safely expose employees performing interventions in the working chamber of EPBTBMs to hyperbaric pressures up to 75 p.s.i.g., which is 50% higher than maximum pressure specified by the existing OSHA standard (see 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5)). The applicant asserts that these hyperbaric exposures are possible because of advances in hyperbaric technology, a better understanding of hyperbaric medicine, and the development of a project-specific HOM (Hyperbaric Operations Manual) that requires specialized medical support and hyperbaric supervision to provide assistance to a team of specially trained man-lock attendants and hyperbaric workers.

    The applicant contends that the alternative safety measures included in its application provide its workers with a place of employment that is at least as safe and healthful as they would obtain under the existing provisions of OSHA's compressed-air standard for construction. The applicant certifies that it provided employee representatives of affected workers with a copy of the variance application.2 The applicant also certifies that it notified its workers of the variance application by posting, at prominent locations where it normally posts workplace notices, a summary of the application and information specifying where the workers can examine a copy of the application. In addition, the applicant informed its workers and their representatives of their rights to petition the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health for a hearing on the variance application.

    2 See the definition of “Affected employee or worker” in section VI. D.

    B. Variance From Paragraph (e)(5) of 29 CFR 1926.803, Prohibition of Exposure to Pressure Greater Than 50 p.s.i.g. (See Footnote 1)

    The applicant states that it may perform hyperbaric interventions at pressures greater than 50 p.s.i.g. in the working chamber of the EPBTBM; this pressure exceeds the pressure limit of 50 p.s.i.g. specified for nonemergency purposes by 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5). The EPBTBM has twin man locks, with each man lock having two compartments. This configuration allows workers to access the man locks for compression and decompression, and medical personnel to access the man locks if required in an emergency.

    EPBTBMs are capable of maintaining pressure at the tunnel face, and stabilizing existing geological conditions, through the controlled use of propel cylinders, a mechanically driven cutter head, bulkheads within the shield, ground-treatment foam, and a screw conveyor that moves excavated material from the working chamber. As noted earlier, the forward-most portion of the EPBTBM is the working chamber, and this chamber is the only pressurized segment of the EPBTBM. Within the shield, the working chamber consists of two sections: The staging chamber and the forward working chamber. The staging chamber is the section of the working chamber between the man-lock door and the entry door to the forward working chamber. The forward working chamber is immediately behind the cutter head and tunnel face.

    The applicant will pressurize the working chamber to the level required to maintain a stable tunnel face. Pressure in the staging chamber ranges from atmospheric (no increased pressure), to a maximum pressure equal to the pressure in the working chamber. The applicant asserts that most of the hyperbaric interventions will be at or near atmospheric pressure. However, the applicant maintains that they may have to perform interventions at pressures up to 52 p.s.i.g.

    During interventions, workers enter the working chamber through one of the twin man locks that open into the staging chamber. To reach the forward part of the working chamber, workers pass through a door in a bulkhead that separates the staging chamber from the forward working chamber. The maximum crew size allowed in the forward working chamber is three. At certain hyperbaric pressures (i.e., when decompression times are greater than work times), the twin man locks allow for crew rotation. During crew rotation, one crew can be compressing or decompressing while the second crew is working. Therefore, the working crew always has an unoccupied man lock at its disposal.

    The applicant developed a project-specific HOM for the Anacostia River Tunnel project (Exhibit OSHA-2014-0011-0003, IHP JV Project-Specific HOM) that describes in detail the hyperbaric procedures and required medical examinations used during the tunnel-construction project. The HOM is project-specific, and discusses standard operating procedures and emergency and contingency procedures. The procedures include using experienced and knowledgeable man-lock attendants who have the training and experience necessary to recognize and treat decompression illnesses and injuries. The attendants are under the direct supervision of the hyperbaric supervisor and attending physician. In addition, procedures include medical screening and review of prospective compressed-air workers (CAWs). The purpose of this screening procedure is to vet prospective CAWs with medical conditions (e.g., deep vein thrombosis, poor vascular circulation, and muscle cramping) that could be aggravated by sitting in a cramped space (e.g., a man lock) for extended periods or by exposure to elevated pressures and compressed gas mixtures. A transportable recompression chamber (shuttle) is available to extract workers from the hyperbaric working chamber for emergency evacuation and medical treatment; the shuttle attaches to the topside medical lock, which is a large recompression chamber. The applicant believes that the procedures included in the HOM provide safe work conditions when interventions are necessary, including interventions above 50 p.s.i.g.

    C. Variance From Paragraph (f)(1) of 29 CFR 1926.803, Requirement To Use OSHA Decompression Tables

    OSHA's compressed-air standard for construction requires decompression in accordance with the decompression tables in Appendix A of 29 CFR part 1926, subpart S (see 29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1)). As an alternative to the OSHA decompression tables, the applicant proposes to use newer decompression schedules that supplement breathing air used during decompression with pure oxygen. The applicant asserts that these decompression protocols are safer for tunnel workers than the decompression protocols specified in Appendix A of 29 CFR part 1926, subpart S. Accordingly, the applicant proposes to use the 1992 French Decompression Tables to decompress CAWs after they exit the hyperbaric conditions in the working chamber.

    Depending on the maximum working pressure and exposure times, the 1992 French Decompression Tables provide for air decompression with or without oxygen. IHP JV asserts that oxygen decompression has many benefits, including (1) keeping the partial pressure of nitrogen in the lungs as low as possible; (2) keeping external pressure as low as possible to reduce the formation of bubbles in the blood; (3) removing nitrogen from the lungs and arterial blood and increasing the rate of elimination of nitrogen; (4) improving the quality of breathing during decompression stops so that workers are less tired and to prevent bone necrosis; (5) reducing decompression time by about 33 percent as compared to air decompression; and (6) reducing inflammation.

    In addition, the HOM requires a physician certified in hyperbaric medicine to manage the medical condition of CAWs during hyperbaric exposures and decompression. A trained and experienced man-lock attendant also will be present during hyperbaric exposures and decompression. This man-lock attendant will operate the hyperbaric system to ensure compliance with the specified decompression table. A hyperbaric supervisor (competent person), trained in hyperbaric operations, procedures, and safety, will directly oversee all hyperbaric interventions, and ensure that staff follow the procedures delineated in the HOM or by the attending physician.

    The applicant asserts that at higher hyperbaric pressures, decompression times exceed 75 minutes. The HOM establishes protocols and procedures that provide the basis for alternate means of protection for CAWs under these conditions. Accordingly, based on these protocols and procedures, the applicant requests to use the 1992 French Decompression Tables for hyperbaric interventions up to 52 p.s.i.g. for the Anacostia River Tunnel project. The applicant is committed to follow the decompression procedures described in the project-specific HOM during these interventions.

    D. Variance From Paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of 29 CFR 1926.803, Automatically Regulated Continuous Decompression

    According to the applicant, breathing air under hyperbaric conditions increases the amount of nitrogen gas dissolved in a CAW's tissues. The greater the hyperbaric pressure under these conditions, and the more time spent under the increased pressure, the greater the amount of nitrogen gas dissolved in the tissues. When the pressure decreases during decompression, tissues release the dissolved nitrogen gas into the blood system, which then carries the nitrogen gas to the lungs for elimination through exhalation. Releasing hyperbaric pressure too rapidly during decompression can increase the size of the bubbles formed by nitrogen gas in the blood system, resulting in DCI, commonly referred to as “the bends.” This description of the etiology of DCI is consistent with current scientific theory and research on the issue (see footnote 12 in this notice discussing a 1985 NIOSH report on DCI).

    The 1992 French Decompression Tables proposed for use by the applicant provide for stops during worker decompression (i.e., staged decompression) to control the release of nitrogen gas from tissues into the blood system. Studies show that staged decompression, in combination with other features of the 1992 French Decompression Tables such as the use of oxygen, result in a lower incidence of DCI than the OSHA decompression requirements of 29 CFR 1926.803, which specify the use of automatically regulated continuous decompression (see footnotes 10 through 14 in this notice for references to these studies).3 In addition, the applicant asserts that staged decompression is at least as effective as an automatic controller in regulating the decompression process because:

    3 In the study cited in footnote 10 of this notice, starting at page 338, Dr. Eric Kindwall notes that the use of automatically regulated continuous decompression in the Washington State safety standards for compressed-air work (from which OSHA derived its decompression tables) was at the insistence of contractors and the union, and against the advice of the expert who calculated the decompression table and recommended using staged decompression. Dr. Kindwall then states, “Continuous decompression is inefficient and wasteful. For example, if the last stage from 4 p.s.i.g. . . . to the surface took 1 h, at least half the time is spent at pressures less than 2 p.s.i.g. . . ., which provides less and less meaningful bubble suppression. . . .” In addition, the report referenced in footnote 5 under the section titled, “Background on the Need for Interim Decompression Tables” addresses the continuous-decompression protocol in the OSHA compressed-air standard for construction, noting that “[a]side from the tables for saturation diving to deep depths, no other widely used or officially approved diving decompression tables use straight line, continuous decompressions at varying rates. Stage decompression is usually the rule, since it is simpler to control.”

    1. A hyperbaric supervisor (a competent person experienced and trained in hyperbaric operations, procedures, and safety) directly supervises all hyperbaric interventions and ensures that the man-lock attendant, who is a competent person in the manual control of hyperbaric systems, follows the schedule specified in the decompression tables, including stops; and

    2. The use of the 1992 French Decompression Tables for staged decompression offers an equal or better level of management and control over the decompression process than an automatic controller and results in lower occurrences of DCI.

    Accordingly, the applicant is applying for a permanent variance from the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(iii), which requires automatic controls to regulate decompression. As noted above, the applicant is committed to conduct the staged decompression according to the 1992 French Decompression Tables under the direct control of the trained man-lock attendant and under the oversight of the hyperbaric supervisor.

    E. Variance From Paragraph (g)(1)(xvii) of 29 CFR 1926.803, Requirement of Special Decompression Chamber

    The OSHA compressed-air standard for construction requires employers to use a special decompression chamber when total decompression time exceeds 75 minutes (see 29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(xvii)). Use of the special decompression chamber enables CAWs to move about and flex their joints to prevent neuromuscular problems during decompression.

    As an alternative to using a special decompression chamber, the applicant notes that since only the working chamber of the EPBTBM is under pressure, and only a few workers out of the entire crew are exposed to hyperbaric pressure, the man locks (which, as noted earlier, connect directly to the working chamber) and the staging chamber are of sufficient size to accommodate the exposed workers. In addition, available space in the EPBTBM does not allow for an additional special decompression lock. Again, the applicant uses the man locks, each of which adequately accommodates a three-member crew, for this purpose when decompression lasts up to 75 minutes. When decompression exceeds 75 minutes, crews can open the door connecting the two compartments in each man lock during decompression stops or exit the man lock and move into the staging chamber where additional space is available. This alternative enables CAWs to move about and flex their joints to prevent neuromuscular problems during decompression.

    F. Previous Tunnel Construction Variances

    OSHA notes that on May 23, 2014, it granted a sub-aqueous tunnel construction permanent variance to Tully/OHL USA Joint Venture (79 FR 29809) from the same provisions of the standard that regulate work in compressed air (at 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii)) that are the subject of the present application. On March 27, 2015, OSHA also granted another sub-aqueous tunnel construction permanent variance to Traylor/Skanska/Jay Dee Joint Venture (80 FR 16440) from the same provisions of the standard that are the subject of the present application. Generally, the alternate conditions in this notice are based on and very similar to the alternate conditions of the previous permanent variances.

    G. Multi-State Variance

    As stated earlier in this notice, IHP JV applied for a permanent variance and interim order for its Anacostia River Tunnel project only. The Anacostia River Tunnel project is located entirely in the District of Columbia and thus under Federal OSHA's exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, any variance OSHA grants IHP JV will have effect only in the District of Columbia.

    Twenty-eight state safety and health plans have been approved by OSHA under section 18 of the (OSH) Act.4 As part of the permanent variance process, the Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs will notify the State Plans of IHP JV's variance application and grant of the Anacostia River Tunnel project permanent variance.

    4 Six State Plans (Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Maine and the Virgin Islands) limit their occupational safety and health authority to state and local government employers only. State Plans that exercise their occupational safety and health authority over both public- and private-sector employers are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

    Additionally, in considering IHP JV's application for a permanent variance and interim order, OSHA noted that four State Plans have previously granted sub-aqueous tunnel construction variances and imposed different or additional requirements and conditions (California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington). California also promulgated new standards 5 for similar sub-aqueous tunnel construction work.

    5 See California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Subchapter 7, Group 26, Article 154, available at http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/sb7g26a154.html.

    III. Description of the Conditions Specified for the Permanent Variance

    This section describes the alternative means of compliance with 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii) and provides additional detail regarding the conditions that form the basis of IHP JV's permanent variance.

    Condition A: Scope

    The scope of the permanent variance limits coverage to the work situations specified under this condition. Clearly defining the scope of the permanent variance provides IHP JV, IHP JV's employees, other stakeholders, the public, and OSHA with necessary information regarding the work situations in which the permanent variance applies.

    According to 29 CFR 1905.11, an employer (or class or group of employers 6 ) may request a permanent variance for a specific workplace or workplaces (multiple sites). If granted, the variance applies to the specific employer(s) that submitted the application. In this instance, the permanent variance applies to the applicant, IHP JV, for its Anacostia River Tunnel project, and does not apply to any other employers.

    6 A class or group of employers (such as members of a trade alliance or association) may apply jointly for a variance provided an authorized representative for each employer signs the application and the application identifies each employer's affected facilities.

    Condition B: Application

    This condition specifies the circumstances under which the permanent variance is in effect, notably only for hyperbaric work performed during interventions. The condition places clear limits on the circumstances under which the applicant can expose its employees to hyperbaric pressure.

    Condition C: List of Abbreviations

    This condition defines a number of abbreviations used in the permanent variance. OSHA believes that defining these abbreviations serves to clarify and standardize their usage, thereby enhancing the applicant's and its employees' understanding of the conditions specified by the permanent variance.

    Condition D: Definitions

    The condition defines a series of terms, mostly technical terms, used in the permanent variance to standardize and clarify their meaning. Defining these terms serves to enhance the applicant's and its employees' understanding of the conditions specified by the permanent variance.

    Condition E: Safety and Health Practices

    This condition requires the applicant to develop and submit to OSHA an HOM specific to the Anacostia River Tunnel project at least six months before using the EPBTBM for tunneling operations. Additionally, the condition includes a series of related hazard prevention and control requirements and methods (e.g., decompression tables, job hazard analysis (JHA), operations and inspections checklists, incident investigation, recording and notification to OSHA of recordable hyperbaric injuries and illnesses, etc.) designed to ensure the continued effective functioning of the hyperbaric equipment and operating system.

    Review of the HOM enables OSHA to: (1) Determine that the safety and health instructions and measures it specifies are appropriate and do adequately protect the safety and health of the CAWs and that it conforms to the conditions of the variance; and (2) request the applicant to revise or modify the HOM if it finds that the hyperbaric safety and health procedures are not suitable for the specific project and do not adequately protect the safety and health of the CAWs. Once approved, the project-specific HOM becomes part of the variance, thus enabling OSHA to enforce its safety and health procedures and measures.7

    7 Publication of the preliminary Federal Register notice (80 FR 7636) announcing IHP JV's application for a permanent variance and grant of a project-specific interim order constituted acknowledgement by OSHA of the acceptability of the HOM provided by IHP JV for the Anacostia River Tunnel project. Further, publication of this Federal Register notice announcing grant of a project-specific permanent variance constitutes acknowledgement by OSHA of the acceptability of IHP JV's revised HOM (Rev 1) (Ex. OSHA-2014-0011-0009).

    Condition F: Communication

    This condition requires the applicant to develop and implement an effective system of information sharing and communication. Effective information sharing and communication ensures that affected workers receive updated information regarding any safety-related hazards and incidents, and corrective actions taken, prior to the start of each shift. The condition also requires the applicant to ensure that reliable means of emergency communications are available and maintained for affected workers and support personnel during hyperbaric operations. Availability of such reliable means of communication enable affected workers and support personnel to respond quickly and effectively to hazardous conditions or emergencies that may develop during EPBTBM operations.

    Condition G: Worker Qualification and Training

    This condition requires the applicant to develop and implement an effective qualification and training program for affected workers. The condition specifies the factors that an affected worker must know to perform safely during hyperbaric operations, including how to enter, work in, and exit from hyperbaric conditions under both normal and emergency conditions. Having well-trained and qualified workers performing hyperbaric intervention work ensures that they recognize, and respond appropriately to, hyperbaric safety and health hazards. These qualification and training requirements enable affected workers to cope effectively with emergencies, as well as the discomfort and physiological effects of hyperbaric exposure, thereby preventing injury, illness, and fatalities among workers.

    As part of the qualification and training program, paragraph (G)(2)(e) of this condition also requires the applicant to provide affected workers with information they can use to contact the appropriate healthcare professionals if they believe that they are developing hyperbaric-related health effects. This requirement provides for early intervention and treatment of DCI and other health effects resulting from hyperbaric exposure, thereby reducing the potential severity of these effects.

    Condition H: Inspections, Tests, and Accident Prevention

    This condition requires the applicant to develop, implement, and operate a program of frequent and regular inspections of the EPBTBM's hyperbaric equipment and support systems, and associated work areas. This condition helps to ensure the safe operation and physical integrity of the equipment and work areas necessary to conduct hyperbaric operations. The condition also enhances worker safety by reducing the risk of hyperbaric-related emergencies.

    Paragraph (H)(3) of this condition requires the applicant to document tests, inspections, corrective actions, and repairs involving the EPBTBM, and maintain these documents at the job site for the duration of the job. This requirement provides the applicant with information needed to schedule tests and inspections to ensure the continued safe operation of the equipment and systems, and to determine that the actions taken to correct defects in hyperbaric equipment and systems were appropriate, prior to returning them to service.

    Condition I: Compression and Decompression

    This condition requires the applicant to consult with its designated medical advisor regarding special compression or decompression procedures appropriate for any unacclimated CAW. This provision ensures that the applicant consults with the medical advisor, and involves the medical advisor in the evaluation, development, and implementation of compression or decompression protocols appropriate for any CAW requiring acclimation to the hyperbaric conditions encountered during EPBTBM operations. Accordingly, CAWs requiring acclimation have an opportunity to acclimate prior to exposure to these hyperbaric conditions. OSHA believes this condition will prevent or reduce adverse reactions among CAWs to the effects of compression or decompression associated with the intervention work they perform in the EPBTBM.

    Condition J: Recordkeeping

    This condition requires the applicant to maintain records of specific factors associated with each hyperbaric intervention. The information gathered and recorded under this provision, in concert with the information provided under Condition K (using OSHA 301 Incident Report form to investigate and record hyperbaric recordable injuries as defined by 29 CFR 1904.4, 1904.7, 1904.8 through 1904.12), enables the applicant and OSHA to determine the effectiveness of the permanent variance in preventing decompression illness (DCI) and other hyperbaric-related effects.8

    8 See 29 CFR 1904 Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9631); recordkeeping forms and instructions (http://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/RKform300pkg-fillable-enabled.pdf); OSHA Recordkeeping Handbook (http://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/handbook/index.html); and updates to OSHA's recordkeeping rule Web page ((79 FR 56130); http://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping2014/index.html)).

    Condition K: Notifications

    Under this condition, the applicant must, within specified periods: (1) Notify OSHA of any recordable injuries, illnesses, in-patient hospitalizations, amputations, loss of an eye, or fatality that occur as a result of hyperbaric exposures during EPBTBM operations; (2) provide OSHA with a copy of the incident investigation report (using OSHA 301 form) of these events; (3) include on the 301 form information on the hyperbaric conditions associated with the recordable injury or illness, the root-cause determination, and preventive and corrective actions identified and implemented by the applicant; and (4) its certification that it informed affected workers of the incident and the results of the incident investigation.

    This condition also requires the applicant to: Notify the Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities (OTPCA) and the Baltimore/Washington DC Area Office within 15 working days should the applicant need to revise its HOM to accommodate changes in its compressed-air operations that affect its ability to comply with the conditions of the permanent variance; and provide OSHA's OTPCA and the Baltimore/Washington DC Area Office, at the end of the project, with a report evaluating the effectiveness of the decompression tables.

    These notification requirements enable the applicant, its employees, and OSHA to determine the effectiveness of the permanent variance in providing the requisite level of safety to the applicant's workers and, based on this determination, whether to revise or revoke the conditions of the permanent variance. Timely notification permits OSHA to take whatever action may be necessary and appropriate to prevent further injuries and illnesses. Providing notification to employees informs them of the precautions taken by the applicant to prevent similar incidents in the future.

    This condition also requires the applicant to notify OSHA if it ceases to do business, has a new address or location for its main office, or transfers the operations covered by the permanent variance to a successor company. In addition, the condition specifies that OSHA must approve the transfer of the permanent variance to a successor company. These requirements allow OSHA to communicate effectively with the applicant regarding the status of the permanent variance, and expedite the Agency's administration and enforcement of the permanent variance. Stipulating that an applicant must have OSHA's approval to transfer a variance to a successor company provides assurance that the successor company has knowledge of, and will comply with, the conditions specified by the permanent variance, thereby ensuring the safety of workers involved in performing the operations covered by the permanent variance.

    IV. Comments on the Proposed Variance Application

    OSHA received one public comment on the proposed variance application. Mr. Barry Cole (safety specialist) representing Cole-Preferred Safety Consulting, Inc., supported granting the permanent variance (Exhibit OSHA-2014-0011-0008). In his comment, Mr. Cole made two suggestions. First, he proposed that OSHA should allow the applicant substantially more room to work beyond the anticipated hyperbaric pressure of 52 p.s.i.g., by changing the upper hyperbaric pressure limit of the variance from 52 p.s.i.g. to “the level necessary to maintain safety on the face, and/up to the design/rating limits of the machinery described.” Second, he recommended that OSHA should issue a letter of interpretation (LOI) that allows all tunnel construction companies working under hyperbaric conditions “to be allowed to use the stepped method of depressurization, as per engineering/medical data and schedules (such as but not limited to the French scale), as it is the best/safest practice, and the original standard should have included it, even if the preference was for some reason to use auto/straight line [decompression]. Either may be allowed, under my proposed letter of interpretation.”

    The remainder of this section describes OSHA's response to Mr. Cole's comments.

    First, OSHA finds that the recommendation to increase the upper hyperbaric pressure limit of the variance from 52 p.s.i.g. to the level necessary to maintain safety at the face of the EPBTBM (up to 75 p.s.i.g.), is well beyond the scope of the requested variance. Therefore, OSHA will not modify the permanent variance.

    Initially, IHP JV sought a permanent variance for work in hyperbaric environments up to 50 p.s.i.g., as indicated in its Anacostia River Tunnel project-specific HOM. The HOM stated that in the unlikely event that working pressures exceeding the anticipated maximum of 50 p.s.i.g. are required during interventions, an amendment will be prepared and added to the HOM. Following discussions with the applicant, and in response to the applicant's request, OSHA is granting an increase in the upper hyperbaric pressure limit of the variance from 50 p.s.i.g. to 52 p.s.i.g. This increase will: (1) Provide greater flexibility and timeliness for responding to unanticipated conditions such as the need for increased face pressure (exceeding 50 p.s.i.g.) in the excavation chamber of the EPBTBM during interventions; and (2) maintain consistency with the upper hyperbaric pressure limit of 52 p.s.i.g. included in the variance OSHA granted to Traylor Skanska Jay Dee Joint Venture (80 FR 16440) for completing the Blue Plains Tunnel, another phase of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority's (“DC Water”) Clean Rivers project. Subsequently, IHP JV submitted a revised Anacostia River Tunnel project-specific HOM (Rev. 1; see Ex. OSHA-2014-0011-0009) for work in hyperbaric environments up to 52 p.s.i.g.

    Second, OSHA finds that the recommendation to publish a LOI on stepped decompression using the French or other tables is well beyond the scope of this variance. Therefore, OSHA will not undertake issuing an LOI that allows tunnel construction companies working under hyperbaric conditions to operate under the conditions of previously granted variances. Moreover, the grant of this variance is conditioned on OSHA's approval of the applicant's HOM, and such a procedure would not be possible under a LOI.

    Further, broader, industry-wide issues such as the setting of hyperbaric exposure and decompression limits for all tunneling work would be more appropriately resolved through the rulemaking process. In recognition of this, on December 6, 2012, OSHA published a Federal Register notice (77 FR 72781) announcing a request for information (RFI) for its continuing regulatory reviews named standards improvement projects (SIPs). The Agency is currently working on SIP-Phase IV (SIP-IV). As part of SIP-IV, OSHA is considering updating the decompression tables in Appendix A (1926.803 (f)(1)). This proposed action would permit employers to use decompression procedures and updated decompression tables that take advantage of new hyperbaric technologies used widely in extreme hyperbaric exposures. If the planned SIP-IV revises Appendix A, IHP JV (and similar tunneling contractors previously granted a variance) will no longer need to obtain a variance from the use of decompression values specified in decompression tables in Appendix A of the compressed-air standard for construction (29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1)). However, they would still require hyperbaric tunneling variances to address portions of the standard not proposed to be covered by SIP-IV (i.e., 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5); .803(g)(1)(iii) and .803(g)(1)(xvii)).

    If SIP-IV is completed (including the planned update of the decompression tables in Appendix A (1926.803 (f)(1)), OSHA will modify IHP JV's and similar variances granted to other employers to include the applicable SIP-IV provisions as appropriate.

    V. Decision

    As noted earlier, on February 11, 2015, OSHA published a preliminary Federal Register notice announcing IHP JV's application for a permanent variance and interim order, grant of an interim order, and request for comments (80 FR 7636).

    During the period starting with the February 11, 2015, publication of the preliminary Federal Register notice announcing grant of the interim order, until completion of the Anacostia River Tunnel or the Agency modifies or revokes the interim order or makes a decision on its application for a permanent variance, the applicant was required to comply fully with the conditions of the interim order as an alternative to complying with the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.803 (hereafter, “the standard”) that:

    A. Prohibit employers using compressed air under hyperbaric conditions from subjecting workers to pressure exceeding 50 p.s.i.g., except in emergency (29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5));

    B. Require the use of decompression values specified by the decompression tables in Appendix A of the compressed-air standard (29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1)); and

    C. Require the use of automated operational controls and a special decompression chamber (29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(iii) and .803(g)(1)(xvii), respectively).

    After reviewing the proposed alternative measures, OSHA determined that:

    A. IHP JV developed, and proposed to implement, effective alternative measures to the prohibition of using compressed air under hyperbaric conditions exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. The alternative measures include use of engineering and administrative controls of the hazards associated with work performed in compressed-air conditions exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. while engaged in the construction of a subaqueous tunnel using advanced shielded mechanical-excavation techniques in conjunction with an EPBTBM. Prior to conducting interventions in the EPBTBM's pressurized working chamber, the applicant halts tunnel excavation and prepares the machine and crew to conduct the interventions. Interventions involve inspection, maintenance, or repair of the mechanical-excavation components located in the working chamber.

    B. IHP JV developed, and proposed to implement, safe hyperbaric work procedures, emergency and contingency procedures, and medical examinations for the project's CAWs. The applicant compiled these standard operating procedures into a project-specific HOM. The HOM discusses the procedures and personnel qualifications for performing work safely during the compression and decompression phases of interventions. The HOM also specifies the decompression tables the applicant proposes to use. Depending on the maximum working pressure and exposure times during the interventions, the tables provide for decompression using air, pure oxygen, or a combination of air and oxygen. The decompression tables also include delays or stops for various time intervals at different pressure levels during the transition to atmospheric pressure (i.e., staged decompression). In all cases, a physician certified in hyperbaric medicine will manage the medical condition of CAWs during decompression. In addition, a trained and experienced man-lock attendant, experienced in recognizing decompression sickness or illnesses and injuries, will be present. Of key importance, a hyperbaric supervisor (competent person), trained in hyperbaric operations, procedures, and safety, will directly supervise all hyperbaric operations to ensure compliance with the procedures delineated in the project-specific HOM or by the attending physician.

    C. IHP JV developed, and proposed to implement, a training program to instruct affected workers in the hazards associated with conducting hyperbaric operations.

    D. IHP JV developed, and proposed to implement, an effective alternative to the use of automatic controllers that continuously decrease pressure to achieve decompression in accordance with the tables specified by the standard. The alternative includes using the 1992 French Decompression Tables for guiding staged decompression to achieve lower occurrences of DCI, using a trained and competent attendant for implementing appropriate hyperbaric entry and exit procedures, and providing a competent hyperbaric supervisor, and attending physician certified in hyperbaric medicine, to oversee all hyperbaric operations.

    E. IHP JV developed, and proposed to implement, an effective alternative to the use of the special decompression chamber required by the standard. EPBTBM technology permits the tunnel's work areas to be at atmospheric pressure, with only the face of the EPBTBM (i.e., the working chamber) at elevated pressure. The applicant limits interventions conducted in the working chamber to performing required inspection, maintenance, and repair of the cutting tools on the face of the EPBTBM. The EPBTBM's man lock and working chamber provide sufficient space for the maximum crew of three CAWs to stand up and move around, and safely accommodate decompression times up to 360 minutes. Therefore, OSHA preliminarily determined that the EPBTBM's man lock and working chamber function as effectively as the special decompression chamber required by the standard.

    OSHA conducted a review of the scientific literature regarding decompression to determine whether the alternative decompression method (i.e., the 1992 French Decompression Tables) proposed by the applicant provide a workplace as safe and healthful as that provided by the standard. Based on this review, OSHA preliminarily determined that decompressions conducted in tunneling operations performed with tables 9 result in a lower occurrence of DCI than the decompression tables specified by the standard.10 11 12

    9 In 1992, the French Ministry of Labour replaced the 1974 French Decompression Tables with the 1992 French Decompression Tables, which differ from OSHA's decompression tables in Appendix A by using: (1) Staged decompression as opposed to continuous (linear) decompression; (2) decompression tables based on air or both air and pure oxygen; and (3) emergency tables when unexpected exposure times occur (up to 30 minutes above the maximum allowed working time).

    10 Kindwall, EP (1997). Compressed-air tunneling and caisson work decompression procedures: Development, problems, and solutions. Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine, 24(4), pp. 337-345. This article reported 60 treated cases of DCI among 4,168 exposures between 19 and 31 p.s.i.g. over a 51-week contract period, for a DCI incidence of 1.44% for the decompression tables specified by the OSHA standard.

    11 Sealey, JL (1969). Safe exit from the hyperbaric environment: Medical experience with pressurized tunnel operations. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 11(5), pp. 273-275. This article reported 210 treated cases of DCI among 38,600 hyperbaric exposures between 13 and 34 p.s.i.g. over a 32-month period, for an incidence of 0.54% for the decompression tables specified by the Washington State safety standards for compressed-air work, which are similar to the tables in the OSHA standard. Moreover, the article reported 51 treated cases of DCI for 3,000 exposures between 30 and 34 p.s.i.g., for an incidence of 1.7% for the Washington State tables.

    12 In 1985, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) published a report entitled “Criteria for Interim Decompression Tables for Caisson and Tunnel Workers;” this report reviewed studies of DCI and other hyperbaric-related injuries resulting from use of OSHA's tables. This report is available on NIOSH's Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/decompression/default.html.

    The review conducted by OSHA found several research studies supporting the determination that the 1992 French Decompression Tables result in a lower rate of DCI than the decompression tables specified by the standard. For example, H. L. Anderson studied the occurrence of DCI at maximum hyperbaric pressures ranging from 4 p.s.i.g. to 43 p.s.i.g. during construction of the Great Belt Tunnel in Denmark (1992-1996); 13 this project used the 1992 French Decompression Tables to decompress the workers during part of the construction. Anderson observed 6 DCI cases out of 7,220 decompression events, and reported that switching to the 1992 French Decompression tables reduced the DCI incidence to 0.08%. The DCI incidence in the study by H.L. Andersen is substantially less than the DCI incidence reported for the decompression tables specified in Appendix A. OSHA found no studies in which the DCI incidence reported for the 1992 French Decompression Tables were higher than the DCI incidence reported for the OSHA decompression tables, nor did OSHA find any studies indicating that the 1992 French Decompression Tables were more hazardous to employees than the OSHA decompression tables.14 Therefore, OSHA concludes that use of the 1992 French Decompression Tables protect workers at least as effectively as the OSHA decompression tables.

    13 Anderson HL (2002). Decompression sickness during construction of the Great Belt tunnel, Denmark. Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine, 29(3), pp. 172-188.

    14 Le Péchon JC, Barre P, Baud JP, Ollivier F (September 1996). Compressed-air work—French tables 1992—operational results. JCLP Hyperbarie Paris, Centre Medical Subaquatique Interentreprise, Marseille: Communication a l'EUBS, pp. 1-5 (see Ex. OSHA-2014-0011-0004).

    Based on a review of available evidence, the experience of State Plans that either granted variances (Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) 15 or promulgated a new standard (California)16 for hyperbaric exposures occurring during similar subaqueous tunnel-construction work, and the information provided in the applicant's variance application, OSHA is granting the permanent variance.

    15 These state variances are available in the docket: Exs. OSHA-2014-0011-0005 (Nevada), OSHA-2014-0011-0006 (Oregon), and OSHA-2014-0011-0007 (Washington).

    16 See California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Subchapter 7, Group 26, Article 154, available at http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/sb7g26a154.html.

    Under Section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(d)), and based on the record discussed above, the Agency finds that when the employer complies with the conditions of the following order, the working conditions of the employer's workers are at least as safe and healthful as if the employer complied with the working conditions specified by paragraphs (e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii) of 29 CFR 1926.803. Under the terms of this variance, IHP JV must: (1) Comply with the conditions listed below under “Specific Conditions of the Permanent Variance” for the period between the date of this notice and completion of the Anacostia River Tunnel project, but no later than December 31, 2016; (2) comply fully with all other applicable provisions of 29 CFR part 1926; and (3) provide a copy of this Federal Register notice to all employees affected by the conditions, including the affected employees of other employers, using the same means it used to inform these employees of its application for a permanent variance. This order will remain in effect until one of the following conditions occurs: (1) Completion of the IHP JV Anacostia River Tunnel project but no later than December 31, 2016; or (2) OSHA modifies or revokes this final order in accordance with 29 CFR 1905.13.

    VI. Order

    As of the effective date of this final order, OSHA is revoking the interim order granted to the employer on February 11, 2015 (80 FR 7636).

    OSHA issues this final order authorizing Impregilo Healy Parsons Joint Venture, (“IHP JV” or “the applicant”), to comply with the following conditions instead of complying with the requirements of paragraphs 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii). This final order applies to Impregilo Healy Parsons Joint Venture at the Anacostia River Tunnel project in Washington, DC. These conditions are:

    A. Scope

    The permanent variance applies only to work:

    1. That occurs in conjunction with construction of the Anacostia River Tunnel project, a subaqueous tunnel constructed using advanced shielded mechanical-excavation techniques and involving operation of an EPBTBM;

    2. Performed under compressed-air and hyperbaric conditions up to 52 p.s.i.g. at the Anacostia River Tunnel project;

    3. In the EPBTBM's forward section (the working chamber) and associated hyperbaric chambers used to pressurize and decompress employees entering and exiting the working chamber;

    4. Except for the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii), IHP JV must comply fully with all other applicable provisions of 29 CFR part 1926; and

    5. This order will remain in effect until one of the following conditions occurs: (1) Completion of the Anacostia River Tunnel project, but no later than December 31, 2016; or (2) OSHA modifies or revokes this final order in accordance with 29 CFR 1905.13.

    B. Application

    The permanent variance applies only when IHP JV stops the tunnel-boring work, pressurizes the working chamber, and the CAWs either enter the working chamber to perform interventions (i.e., inspect, maintain, or repair the mechanical-excavation components), or exit the working chamber after performing interventions.

    C. List of Abbreviations

    Abbreviations used throughout this permanent variance include the following:

    1. CAW—Compressed-air worker 2. CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 3. DCI—Decompression Illness 4. EPBTBM—Earth Pressure Balanced Tunnel Boring Machine 5. HOM—Hyperbaric Operations and Safety Manual 6. JHA—Job hazard analysis 7. OSHA—Occupational Safety and Health Administration 8. OTPCA—Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities D. Definitions

    The following definitions apply to this permanent variance. These definitions supplement the definitions in IHP JV's project-specific HOM.

    1. Affected employee or worker—an employee or worker who is affected by the conditions of this permanent variance, or any one of his or her authorized representatives. The term “employee” has the meaning defined and used under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.)

    2. Atmospheric pressure—the pressure of air at sea-level, generally, 14.7 p.s.i.a., 1 atmosphere absolute, or 0 p.s.i.g.

    3. Compressed-air worker—an individual who is specially trained and medically qualified to perform work in a pressurized environment while breathing air at pressures up to 52 p.s.i.g.

    4. Competent person—an individual who is capable of identifying existing and predictable hazards in the surroundings or working conditions that are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to employees, and who has authorization to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them.17

    17 Adapted from 29 CFR 1926.32(f).

    5. Decompression illness—an illness (also called decompression sickness (DCS) or the bends) caused by gas bubbles appearing in body compartments due to a reduction in ambient pressure. Examples of symptoms of decompression illness include (but are not limited to): joint pain (also known as the `bends' for agonizing pain or the `niggles' for slight pain); areas of bone destruction (termed dysbaric osteonecrosis); skin disorders (such as cutis marmorata, which causes a pink marbling of the skin); spinal cord and brain disorders (such as stroke, paralysis, paresthesia, and bladder dysfunction); cardiopulmonary disorders, such as shortness of breath; and arterial gas embolism (gas bubbles in the arteries that block blood flow).18

    18 See Appendix 10 of “A Guide to the Work in Compressed-Air Regulations 1996,” published by the United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive available from NIOSH at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docket/archive/pdfs/NIOSH-254/compReg1996.pdf.

    Note: Health effects associated with hyperbaric intervention but not considered symptoms of DCI can include: barotrauma (direct damage to air-containing cavities in the body such as ears, sinuses and lungs); nitrogen narcosis (reversible alteration in consciousness that may occur in hyperbaric environments and is caused by the anesthetic effect of certain gases at high pressure); and oxygen toxicity (a central nervous system condition resulting from the harmful effects of breathing molecular oxygen (O2) at elevated partial pressures).

    6. Earth Pressure Balanced Tunnel Boring Machine—the machinery used to excavate the tunnel.

    7. Hot work—any activity performed in a hazardous location that may introduce an ignition source into a potentially flammable atmosphere.19

    19 Also see 29 CFR 1910.146(b).

    8. Hyperbaric—at a higher pressure than atmospheric pressure.

    9. Hyperbaric intervention—a term that describes the process of stopping the EPBTBM and preparing and executing work under hyperbaric pressure in the working chamber for the purpose of inspecting, replacing, or repairing cutting tools and/or the cutterhead structure.

    10. Hyperbaric Operations Manual—a detailed, project-specific health and safety plan developed and implemented by IHP JV for working in compressed air during the construction of the Anacostia River Tunnel.

    11. Job hazard analysis—an evaluation of tasks or operations to identify potential hazards and to determine the necessary controls.

    12. Man lock—an enclosed space capable of pressurization, and used for compressing or decompressing any employee or material when either is passing into or out of a working chamber.

    13. Pressure—a force acting on a unit area. Usually expressed as pounds per square inch (p.s.i.).

    14. p.s.i.—pounds per square inch, a common unit of measurement of pressure; a pressure given in p.s.i. corresponds to absolute pressure.

    15. p.s.i.a—pounds per square inch absolute, or absolute pressure, is the sum of the atmospheric pressure and gauge pressure. At sea-level, atmospheric pressure is approximately 14.7 p.s.i. Adding 14.7 to a pressure expressed in units of p.s.i.g. will yield the absolute pressure, expressed as p.s.i.a.

    16. p.s.i.g.—pounds per square inch gauge, a common unit of pressure; pressure expressed as p.s.i.g. corresponds to pressure relative to atmospheric pressure. At sea-level, atmospheric pressure is approximately 14.7 p.s.i. Subtracting 14.7 from a pressure expressed in units of p.s.i.a. yields the gauge pressure, expressed as p.s.i.g.

    17. Qualified person—an individual who, by possession of a recognized degree, certificate, or professional standing, or who, by extensive knowledge, training, and experience, successfully demonstrates an ability to solve or resolve problems relating to the subject matter, the work, or the project.20

    20 Adapted from 29 CFR 1926.32(m).

    18. Working chamber—an enclosed space in the EPBTBM in which CAWs perform interventions, and which is accessible only through a man lock.

    E. Safety and Health Practices

    1. IHP JV must develop and implement a project-specific HOM, and submit the HOM to OSHA for approval at least six months before using the EPBTBM. IHP JV must receive a written acknowledgement from OSHA regarding the acceptability of the HOM.21 The HOM shall provide the governing safety and health requirements regarding hyperbaric exposures during the tunnel-construction project.

    21 See footnote 7.

    2. IHP JV must implement the safety and health instructions included in the manufacturer's operations manuals for the EPBTBM, and the safety and health instructions provided by the manufacturer for the operation of decompression equipment.

    3. IHP JV must use air as the only breathing gas in the working chamber.

    4. IHP JV must use the 1992 French Decompression Tables for air, air-oxygen, and oxygen decompression specified in the HOM, specifically, the tables titled, “French Regulation Air Standard Tables.”

    5. IHP JV must equip man locks used by its employees with an oxygen-delivery system as specified by the HOM. IHP JV must not store oxygen or other compressed gases used in conjunction with hyperbaric work in the tunnel.

    6. Workers performing hot work under hyperbaric conditions must use flame-retardant personal protective equipment and clothing.

    7. In hyperbaric work areas, IHP JV must maintain an adequate fire-suppression system approved for hyperbaric work areas.

    8. IHP JV must develop and implement one or more JHAs for work in the hyperbaric work areas, and review, periodically, and as necessary (e.g., after making changes to a planned intervention that affects its operation), the contents of the JHAs with affected employees. The JHAs must include all the job functions that the risk assessment 22 indicates are essential to prevent injury or illness.

    22 See ANSI/AIHA Z10-2012, American National Standard for Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems, for reference.

    9. IHP JV must develop a set of checklists to guide compressed-air work and ensure that employees follow the procedures required by this permanent variance (including all procedures required by the HOM, which this permanent variance incorporates by reference). The checklists must include all steps and equipment functions that the risk assessment indicates are essential to prevent injury or illness during compressed-air work.

    10. IHP JV must ensure that the safety and health provisions of the HOM adequately protect the workers of all contractors and subcontractors involved in hyperbaric operations.23

    23 See ANSI/ASSE A10.33-2011, American National Standard for Construction and Demolition Operations—Safety and Health Program Requirements for Multi-Employer Projects, for reference.

    F. Communication

    1. Prior to beginning a shift, IHP JV must implement a system that informs workers exposed to hyperbaric conditions of any hazardous occurrences or conditions that might affect their safety, including hyperbaric incidents, gas releases, equipment failures, earth or rock slides, cave-ins, flooding, fires, or explosions.

    2. IHP JV must provide a power-assisted means of communication among affected workers and support personnel in hyperbaric conditions where unassisted voice communication is inadequate.

    (a) IHP JV must use an independent power supply for powered communication systems, and these systems must operate such that use or disruption of any one phone or signal location will not disrupt the operation of the system from any other location.

    (b) IHP JV must test communication systems at the start of each shift and as necessary thereafter to ensure proper operation.

    G. Worker Qualifications and Training

    IHP JV must:

    1. Ensure that each affected worker receives effective training on how to safely enter, work in, exit from, and undertake emergency evacuation or rescue from, hyperbaric conditions, and document this training.

    2. Provide effective instruction, before beginning hyperbaric operations, to each worker who performs work, or controls the exposure of others, in hyperbaric conditions, and document this instruction. The instruction must include topics such as:

    (a) The physics and physiology of hyperbaric work;

    (b) Recognition of pressure-related injuries;

    (c) Information on the causes and recognition of the signs and symptoms associated with decompression illness, and other hyperbaric intervention-related health effects (e.g., barotrauma, nitrogen narcosis, and oxygen toxicity);

    (d) How to avoid discomfort during compression and decompression; and

    (e) Information the workers can use to contact the appropriate healthcare professionals should the workers have concerns that they may be experiencing adverse health effects from hyperbaric exposure.

    3. Repeat the instruction specified in paragraph (2) of this condition periodically, and as necessary (e.g., after making changes to its hyperbaric operations).

    4. When conducting training for its hyperbaric workers, make this training available to OSHA personnel and notify the OTPCA at OSHA's national office and the Baltimore/Washington DC Area Office before the training takes place.

    H. Inspections, Tests, and Accident Prevention

    1. IHP JV must initiate and maintain a program of frequent and regular inspections of the EPBTBM's hyperbaric equipment and support systems (such as temperature control, illumination, ventilation, and fire-prevention and fire-suppression systems), and hyperbaric work areas, as required under 29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2) by:

    (a) Developing a set of checklists to be used by a competent person in conducting weekly inspections of hyperbaric equipment and work areas; and

    (b) Ensuring that a competent person conducts daily visual checks and weekly inspections of the EPBTBM.

    2. If the competent person determines that the equipment constitutes a safety hazard, IHP JV must remove the equipment from service until it corrects the hazardous condition and has the correction approved by a qualified person.

    3. IHP JV must maintain records of all tests and inspections of the EPBTBM, as well as associated corrective actions and repairs, at the job site for the duration of the job.

    I. Compression and Decompression

    IHP JV must consult with its attending physician concerning the need for special compression or decompression exposures appropriate for CAWs not acclimated to hyperbaric exposure.

    J. Recordkeeping

    IHP JV must maintain a record of any recordable injuries, illnesses, in-patient hospitalizations, amputations, loss of an eye, or fatality (as defined by 29 CFR part 1904 Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses), resulting from exposure of an employee to hyperbaric conditions by completing the OSHA 301 Incident Report form and OSHA 300 Log of Work Related Injuries and Illnesses.

    Note: Examples of important information to include on the OSHA 301 Incident Report form (along with the corresponding question on the form) must address the following: the task performed (Question (Q) 14); an estimate of the CAW's workload (Q 14); the composition of the gas mixture (e.g., air or oxygen); the pressure worked at (Q 14); temperature in the work and decompression environments (Q 14); did something unusual occur during the task or decompression (Q 14); time of symptom onset (Q 15); duration of time between decompression and onset of symptoms (Q 15); nature and duration of symptoms (Q 16); a medical summary of the illness or injury (Q 16); duration of the hyperbaric intervention (Q 17); any possible contributing factors (Q 17); the number of prior interventions completed by injured or ill CAW (Q 17); the number of prior interventions completed by injured or ill CAW at that pressure (Q 17); the contact information for the treating healthcare provider (Q 17); and the date and time of last hyperbaric exposure for this CAW.

    In addition to completing the OSHA 301 Incident Report form and OSHA 300 Log of Work Related Injuries and Illnesses, IHP JV must maintain records of:

    1. The date, times (e.g., began compression, time spent compressing, time performing intervention, time spent decompressing), and pressure for each hyperbaric intervention.

    2. The name of each individual worker exposed to hyperbaric pressure and the decompression protocols and results for each worker.

    3. The total number of interventions and the amount of hyperbaric work time at each pressure.

    4. The post-intervention physical assessment of each individual CAW for signs and symptoms of decompression illness, barotrauma, nitrogen narcosis, oxygen toxicity or other health effects associated with work in compressed air or mixed gasses for each hyperbaric intervention.

    K. Notifications

    1. To assist OSHA in administering the conditions specified herein, IHP JV must:

    (a) Notify the OTPCA and the Baltimore/Washington DC Area Office of any recordable injuries, illnesses, in-patient hospitalizations, amputations, loss of an eye, or fatality (by submitting the completed OSHA 301 Incident Report form 24 ) resulting from exposure of an employee to hyperbaric conditions including those that do not require recompression treatment (e.g., nitrogen narcosis, oxygen toxicity, barotrauma), but still meet the recordable injury or illness criteria (of 29 CFR 1904). The employer shall provide the notification within 8 hours of the incident, or 8 hours after becoming aware of a recordable injury, illness, in-patient hospitalization, amputation, loss of an eye, or fatality, and submit a copy of the incident investigation (OSHA form 301) within 24 hours of the incident, or 24 hours after becoming aware of a recordable injury, illness, in-patient hospitalization, amputation, loss of an eye, or fatality. In addition to the information required by the OSHA form 301, the incident-investigation report must include a root-cause determination, and the preventive and corrective actions identified and implemented.

    24 See footnote 8.

    (b) Provide certification within 15 days of the incident that the employer informed affected workers of the incident and the results of the incident investigation (including the root-cause determination and preventive and corrective actions identified and implemented).

    (c) Notify the OTPCA and the Baltimore/Washington DC Area Office within 15 working days in writing of any change in the compressed-air operations that affects IHP JV's ability to comply with the conditions specified herein.

    (d) Upon completion of the Anacostia River Tunnel project, evaluate the effectiveness of the decompression tables used throughout the project, and provide a written report of this evaluation to the OTPCA and the Baltimore/Washington DC Area Office.

    Note:

    The evaluation report is to contain summaries of: (1) The number, dates, durations, and pressures of the hyperbaric interventions completed; (2) decompression protocols implemented (including composition of gas mixtures (air and/or oxygen), and the results achieved; (3) the total number of interventions and the number of hyperbaric incidents (decompression illnesses and/or health effects associated with hyperbaric interventions as recorded on OSHA 301 and 300 forms, and relevant medical diagnoses and treating physicians' opinions); and (4) root-causes, and preventive and corrective actions identified and implemented.

    (e) To assist OSHA in administering the conditions specified herein, inform the OTPCA and the Baltimore/Washington DC Area Office as soon as possible after it has knowledge that it will:

    (i) Cease to do business;

    (ii) Change the location and address of the main office for managing the tunneling operations specified by the project-specific HOM; or

    (iii) Transfer the operations specified herein to a successor company.

    (f) Notify all affected employees of this permanent variance by the same means required to inform them of its application for a variance.

    2. OSHA must approve the transfer of this permanent variance to a successor company.

    Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 655(d), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1905.11.

    Signed at Washington, DC, August 14, 2015. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20571 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice: (15-069)] NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Heliophysics Subcommittee; Meeting AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Heliophysics Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This subcommittee reports to the Science Committee of the NAC. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.

    DATES:

    Tuesday, September 29, 2015, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., and Wednesday, September 30, 2015, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Local Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    NASA Headquarters, Room 6H41, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Ann Delo, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-0750, fax (202) 358-2779, or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. This meeting will also be available telephonically. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number 888-769-8915, passcode 1573979, both days, to participate in this meeting by telephone. The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:

    —Heliophysics Division Overview and Program Status —Flight Mission Status Report —Heliophysics Science Performance Assessment

    Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to NASA Headquarters.

    Due to the Real ID Act, Public Law 109-13, any attendees with drivers licenses issued from non-compliant states/territories must present a second form of ID [Federal employee badge; passport; active military identification card; enhanced driver's license; U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner card; Native American tribal document; school identification accompanied by an item from LIST C (documents that establish employment authorization) from the “List of the Acceptable Documents” on Form I-9]. Non-compliant states/territories are: American Samoa, Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and New York. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 working days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee; and home address to Ann Delo via at [email protected] or by fax at (202) 358-2779. U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents (green card holders) are requested to submit their name and affiliation 3 working days prior to the meeting to Ann Delo. It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to the scheduling priorities of the key participants.

    Patricia D. Rausch, Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20606 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Renew an Information Collection AGENCY:

    National Science Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to request approval 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 an opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting that OMB approve clearance of this collection for no longer than 3 years.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden or any other aspect of this collection of information requirements by October 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments regarding the information collection and requests for copies of the proposed information collection request should be addressed to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm. 1265, Arlington, VA 22230, or by email to [email protected]

    Comments: Written 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 on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; or (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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 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).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Grantee Reporting Requirements for the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Program.

    OMB Approval Number: 3145-0224.

    Expiration Date: December 31, 2015.

    Overview of this information collection

    The Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Reporting Module is a component of the NSF Project Reports System that is designed to gather information about students participating in REU Sites and Supplements projects. All NSF Principal Investigators are required to submit annual and final project reports through Research.gov. If NSF cannot collect information about undergraduate participants in undergraduate research experiences, NSF will have no other means to consistently document the number and diversity of participants, types of participant involvement in the research, and types of institutions represented by the participants.

    NSF is committed to providing program stakeholders with formation regarding the expenditure of taxpayer funds on these types of activities, which provide authentic research experiences and related training for postsecondary students in STEM fields.

    Consult With Other Agencies & the Public

    NSF has not consulted with other agencies but has gathered information from its grantee community through attendance at PI conferences. A request for public comments will be solicited through announcement of data collection in the Federal Register.

    Background

    All NSF Principal Investigators are required to use the project reporting functionality in Research.gov to report on progress, accomplishments, participants, and activities annually and at the conclusion of their project. Information from annual and final reports provides yearly updates on project inputs, activities, and outcomes for agency reporting purposes. If project participants include undergraduate students supported by the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Sites Program or by an REU Supplement, then the Principal Investigator and his or her students are required to complete the REU Reporting Module.

    Respondents: Individuals (Principal Investigators and REU undergraduate student participants).

    Number of Principal Investigator Respondents: 2,000.

    Burden on the Public: 650 total hours.

    Number of REU Student Participant Respondents: 7,250.

    Burden on the Public: 1,810 total hours.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20536 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2015-0194] Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations Correction

    Due to a scheduling error, NRC notice document 2014-20138, 80 FR 48920, published August 14, 2015, four days earlier than the agency intended. Due to this error the DATES: section for this notice is corrected to read as follows:

    DATES:

    Comments must be filed by September 14, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by October 13, 2015.

    [FR Doc. 2015-20701 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370; NRC-2015-0192] Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17, issued to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, for operation of the McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The proposed amendment would allow a temporary extension of selected Technical Specification required Completion Times (CTs) to support repair activities associated with the Nuclear Service Water System (NSWS). In addition, the amendment request contains Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).

    DATES:

    Submit comments by September 21, 2015. A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by October 19, 2015. Any potential party as defined in § 2.4 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to the notice must request document access by August 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0192. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    G. Edward Miller, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2481, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0192 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0192.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The license amendment request is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15191A025.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0192 in your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

    II. Introduction

    The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17, issued to Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, for operation of the McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

    The proposed amendment would allow a one-time extension of selected Technical Specification required CTs to support repair activities associated with the NSWS.

    Before any issuance of the proposed license amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations.

    The NRC has made a proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The `B' Train NSWS and supported equipment will remain fully operable during the 14 day CT. The alignment of the `A' Train NSWS will remain consistent with the NSWS normal and [engineered safety features actuation system (ESFAS)] alignment. Although not fully operable the `A' Train NSWS and its supported equipment will be capable of performing their functions during the 14 day CT.

    The `A' NSWS and supported equipment function as accident mitigators. Removing `A' Train [standby nuclear service water pond (SNSWP)] supply piping from service for a limited period of time does not affect any accident initiator and therefore cannot change the probability of an accident. The proposed changes and the `A' Train NSWS repair evolution have been evaluated to assess their impact on the systems affected and ensure design basis safety functions are preserved.

    The risk analysis for the proposed NSW system alignment during the 14 day CT shows no delta risk for any [engineered safety feature (ESF)] actuation event that does not involve an earthquake. The most significant risk contributor is a seismic event with a magnitude great enough to cause the failure of Cowan's Ford dam and subsequent loss of Lake Norman or [low level intake] during the 14 day CT. The estimated Incremental Conditional Core Damage Probability (ICCDP) due to the seismic event is much less than the limits associated with Regulatory Guide 1.177.

    In addition, as previously stated, a Seismic Fragility Assessment of the McGuire Low Level Intake [(LLI)] Water Pipeline in December of 2011 indicates that the dam and water supply would withstand a [safe shutdown earthquake (SSE)]. Therefore for the short duration of this proposed alignment the increase in risk is deemed to be negligible.

    Risk associated with tornado/high winds was assessed. The months of November through February have been the seasonal low for tornado frequency. This evolution is currently scheduled for the fall November 2015 time frame. The risk contribution from tornado and high wind events is negligible during the proposed NSWS configuration described in this LAR and therefore, the calculated Core Damage Frequency (CDF) or the Large Early Release Fraction (LERF) contribution due to high wind and tornado events is negligible with respect to overall risk. The activities covered by this LAR also include a defense-in-depth action to cease activities and close the personnel access openings in the event of a tornado warning. Weather patterns will be monitored and this activity will be modified if tornado/high wind conditions become imminent.

    The overall increase in risk for the 14 day CT is solely due to the seismic event which results in a loss of Lake Norman or LLI. However, this risk is reduced by the defense in depth strategy described in the LAR that provides a contingency for the loss of a `B' Train NSWS pump after the loss of the Lake Norman water supply. This defense in depth contingency effectively offsets the unavailability of the `A' Train NSWS SNSWP supply.

    In addition, pre-aligning the `B' Train NSWS to the SNSWP water supply in advance of the proposed activities prevents the introduction of potential equipment failures during an ESFAS demanded transfer. This action also eliminates the time it would take operators to perform the transfer following a seismic event.

    The quantified impact of defense in depth measures and compensatory actions on CDF/LERF cannot be precisely determined, yet it is agreed that the implementation of these actions would only serve to improve these risk parameters.

    Not included in the overall risk evaluation is the additional margin identified by the Fragility Assessment discussed previously that concluded that the Lake Norman Dam and LLI would survive a SSE.

    As stated in NRC Generic Letter 80-30, “Clarification of the Term `Operable' as it Applies to Single Failure Criterion for Safety Systems Required by TS,” there is no requirement to assume a single failure while operating under a Technical Specification (TS) required action. Therefore, there will be no effect on the analysis of any accident or the progression of the accident since the operable NSW `B' train is capable of serving 100 percent of all the required heat loads. As such, there is no impact on consequence mitigation for any transient or accident.

    In light of the above discussion, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment is the one time extension of the required CTs from 72 hours for the ECCS, CSS, NSWS, AFW, CCW and the EDG systems and from 168 hours for the CRAVS and ABFVES systems to 336 hours. The requested change does not involve the addition or removal of any plant system, structure, or component.

    The proposed temporary TS changes do not affect the basic design, operation, or function of any of the systems associated with the TS impacted by the amendment. Implementation of the proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from that previously evaluated.

    McGuire intends to isolate and repair the `A' Train NSWS supply from the SNSWP. This activity will require that `A' Train NSW be aligned to Lake Norman until the system is ready for post maintenance testing. This action maintains the NSW 'A' Train's normal and automatic alignment to Lake Norman but will result in the inability to manually align the `A' Train NSWS to the SNSWP subsequent to a seismic event that results in damage to the supply piping from Lake Norman or the highly improbable loss of Lake Norman.

    Although considered inoperable, the `A' Train NSWS and supported systems will be technically capable of performing their intended functions. Throughout the repair project, compensatory measures will be in place to provide additional assurance that the affected systems will continue to be capable of performing their intended safety functions.

    No new accident causal mechanisms are created as a result of the requested changes creating the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    In conclusion, this proposed LAR does not impact any plant systems that are accident initiators and does not impact any safety analysis.

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions during and following an accident situation. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. The performance of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant and containment systems will not be impacted by the proposed LAR.

    Although not a fission product barrier, the Auxiliary Building Ventilation Boundary plays a role in minimizing the dose consequences from ECCS system leakage into the Auxiliary Building during a design basis accident. The Auxiliary Building Ventilation System in conjunction with ECCS equipment air handling units that automatically start on an ECCS demand draw potentially contaminated air from the ECCS equipment rooms and into the ABFVES. As stated in this LAR, the Auxiliary Building Ventilation Boundary will be breached when the `A' Train NSWS piping is opened for access in the Auxiliary Building. The Validation: Personnel access opening will be controlled by using procedures developed or revised for this purpose to maintain positive control of the auxiliary building pressure boundary and prevent any unmonitored release.

    Dedicated personnel with procedure guidance will be provided to close the pathway from the auxiliary building on the affected `A' Train NSWS piping from the SNSWP in the event of any of the following:

    • An Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) actuation

    • Entry into RP/0/A/5700/006 Natural Disasters

    • Entry into RP/0/A/5700/007 Earthquake

    The pathway will be closed upon notification of an abnormal event as described above. TS 3.7.11 includes a note in the Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) section: “The Auxiliary Building pressure boundary may be opened intermittently under administrative controls.” Based on these measures the performance of this barrier will not be affected by the proposed LAR.

    Additionally, the proposed amendment does not involve a change in the design or operation of the plant. The activity only extends the amount of time the `A' NSW system is allowed to be inoperable to correct the degraded condition on the `A' NSWS supply piping from the SNSWP. As stated previously, the `A' Train NSWS and supported equipment will remain in its Normal and ESFAS alignment during the extended CT and be functionally capable for all postulated events except a seismic event that results in loss of the Lake Norman water supply.

    Defense-in-depth measures involving use of the Main Supply Crossover piping to supply suction to affected unit's `A' Train NSWS pump from the `B' train SNSWP suction piping and the ability to implement the FLEX strategy on both units provide additional safety margin for this event. Use of the Main Supply Crossover line is only needed in the unlikely event that one unit's `B' Train NSWS pump fails after loss of `A' Train NSWS due to an earthquake.

    The estimated ICCDP during the 14 day CT extension is much less than the limits associated with Regulatory Guide 1.177. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the license amendment request involves a No Significant Hazards Consideration.

    The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day notice period if the Commission concludes the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

    III. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this Federal Register notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who desires to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene specifying the contentions which the person seeks to have litigated in the hearing with respect to the license amendment request. Requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the NRC's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.

    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The hearing request or petition must specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted, with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The hearing request or petition must also include the specific contentions that the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.

    For each contention, the requestor/petitioner must provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted, as well as a brief explanation of the basis for the contention. Additionally, the requestor/petitioner must demonstrate that the issue raised by each contention is within the scope of the proceeding and is material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the granting of a license amendment in response to the application. The hearing request or petition must also include a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion that support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely at the hearing, together with references to those specific sources and documents. The hearing request or petition must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact, including references to specific portions of the application for amendment that the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute. If the requestor/petitioner believes that the application for amendment fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the requestor/petitioner must identify each failure and the supporting reasons for the requestor's/petitioner's belief. Each contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who does not satisfy these requirements for at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, policies, and procedures. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will set the time and place for any prehearing conferences and evidentiary hearings, and the appropriate notices will be provided.

    Hearing requests or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).

    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

    IV. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's “Guidance for Electronic Submission,” which is available on the agency's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software.

    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.

    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.

    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

    For further details with respect to this action, see the application for license amendment dated June 30, 2015.

    Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street—EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.

    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

    Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units Nos. 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation

    A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing SUNSI.

    B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request such access. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.

    C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are [email protected] and [email protected], respectively.1 The request must include the following information:

    1 While a request for hearing or petition to intervene in this proceeding must comply with the filing requirements of the NRC's “E-Filing Rule,” the initial request to access SUNSI under these procedures should be submitted as described in this paragraph.

    (1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this Federal Register notice;

    (2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and

    (3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.

    D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:

    (1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and

    (2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.

    E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order 2 setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who will be granted access to SUNSI.

    2 Any motion for Protective Order or draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must be filed with the presiding officer or the Chief Administrative Judge if the presiding officer has not yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline for the receipt of the written access request.

    F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted access to the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. This provision does not extend the time for filing a request for a hearing and petition to intervene, which must comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.309.

    G. Review of Denials of Access.

    (1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and need for access, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.

    (2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) officer if that officer has been designated to rule on information access issues.

    H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access.

    If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.3

    3 Requesters should note that the filing requirements of the NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI request submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures.

    I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.

    It is so ordered.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of August, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
    Attachment 1—General Target Schedule for Processing and Resolving Requests for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information in This Proceeding Day Event/activity 0 Publication of Federal Register notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, including order with instructions for access requests. 10 Deadline for submitting requests for access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) with information: supporting the standing of a potential party identified by name and address; describing the need for the information in order for the potential party to participate meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding. 60 Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing: (i) demonstration of standing; and (ii) all contentions whose formulation does not require access to SUNSI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7 petitioner/requestor reply). 20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requester of the staff's determination whether the request for access provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows need for SUNSI. (NRC staff also informs any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information.) If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins document processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents). 25 If NRC staff finds no “need” or no likelihood of standing, the deadline for petitioner/requester to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds “need” for SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff's grant of access. 30 Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s). 40 (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement for SUNSI. A If access granted: issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a final adverse determination by the NRC staff. A + 3 Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective order. A + 28 Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. A + 53 (Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. A + 60 (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers. >A + 60 Decision on contention admission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20531 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. CP2014-71; Order No. 2665] New Postal Product AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning a modification to a Global Reseller Expedited Package Contracts 2 negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: August 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Notice of Commission Action III. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction

    On August 13, 2015, the Postal Service filed notice that it has agreed to a Modification to the existing Global Reseller Expedited Package Contracts 2 negotiated service agreement approved in this docket.1 In support of its Notice, the Postal Service includes a redacted copy of the Modification and a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), as required by 39 CFR 3015.5.

    1 Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing Modification to a Negotiated Service Agreement, August 13, 2015 (Notice).

    The Postal Service also filed the unredacted Modification and supporting financial information under seal. The Postal Service seeks to incorporate by reference the Application for Non-Public Treatment originally filed in this docket for the protection of information that it has filed under seal. Notice at 1.

    The Modification would extend the prices and other terms of the original agreement to February 17, 2016.

    II. Notice of Filings

    The Commission invites comments on whether the changes presented in the Postal Service's Notice are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than August 21, 2015. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov).

    The Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this docket.

    III. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:

    1. The Commission reopens Docket No. CP2014-71 for consideration of matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.

    2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.

    3. Comments are due no later than August 21, 2015.

    4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Ruth Ann Abrams, Acting Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20579 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. R2015-5; Order No. 2664] International Mail Contract AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning a Type 2 rate adjustment and the filing of a related negotiated service agreement with Hongkong post. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: September 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Contents of Filing III. Commission Action II. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction

    On August 13, 2015, the Postal Service filed a notice, pursuant to 39 CFR 3010.40 et seq., announcing a Type 2 rate adjustment to improve default rates established under the Universal Postal Union Acts.1 The Notice concerns a bilateral agreement with Hongkong Post (Agreement) that the Postal Service contends is similar to the prior Hongkong Post 2014-2015 Agreement that the Commission included within the Inbound Market Dominant Multi-Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators 1 product in the market dominant product list of the Mail Classification Schedule.2

    1 Notice of United States Postal Service of Type 2 Rate Adjustment, and Notice of Filing Functionally Equivalent Agreement, August 13, 2015, at 1(Notice).

    2Id. at 1, citing Docket No. R2014-4, Order No. 1981, Order Approving an Additional Inbound Market Dominant Multi-Service Agreement with Foreign Postal Operators 1 Negotiated Service Agreement (with Hongkong Post), January 29, 2014, at 8.

    II. Contents of Filing

    The Postal Service's filing consists of the Notice, two attachments, and redacted and unredacted versions of an Excel file with supporting financial workpapers. Notice at 1-2. Attachment 1 is an application for non-public treatment of material filed under seal with the Commission. Id. at 1. Attachment 2 is a redacted copy of the Agreement. Id. The Postal Service includes a redacted version of the financial workpapers with its filing as a separate public Excel file. Id. at 1-2.

    The Postal Service states that the intended effective date of the Agreement is October 1, 2015; asserts that it is providing at least the 45 days advance notice required under 39 CFR 3010.41; and identifies the parties to the Agreement as the United States Postal Service and Hongkong Post, the postal operator for Hong Kong. Id. at 2-3.

    Reporting requirements. 39 CFR 3010.43 requires the Postal Service to submit a detailed data collection plan. In lieu of a special data collection plan for the Agreement, the Postal Service proposes to report information on the Agreement through the Annual Compliance Report. Id. at 5-6. The Postal Service also invokes, with respect to service performance measurement reporting under 39 CFR 3055.3(a)(3), the standing exception in Order No. 996 for all agreements filed in the Inbound Market Dominant Multi-Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators 1 product grouping.3

    3Id. at 6, citing Docket No. R2012-2, Order Concerning an Additional Inbound Market Dominant Multi-Service Agreement with Foreign Postal Operators 1 Negotiated Service Agreement, November 23, 2011, at 7 (Order No. 996).

    Consistency with applicable statutory criteria. The Postal Service observes that Commission review of a negotiated service agreement addresses three statutory criteria under 39 U.S.C. 3622(c)(10), whether the agreement: (1) Improves the Postal Service's net financial position or enhances the performance of operational functions; (2) will not cause unreasonable harm to the marketplace; and (3) will be available on public and reasonable terms to similarly situated mailers. Id. The Postal Service asserts that it addresses the first two criteria in its Notice and that the third is inapplicable, as there are no entities similarly situated to Hongkong Post in terms of their ability to tender broad-based small packet flows from Hong Kong. Id.

    Functional equivalence. The Postal Service addresses reasons why it considers the Agreement functionally equivalent to the China Post 2010 Agreement filed in Docket No. R2010-6.4 The Postal Service asserts that it does not consider that the specified differences detract from the conclusion that the Agreement is functionally equivalent to the baseline China Post 2010 Agreement. Notice at 9.

    4Id. at 7; see also Docket Nos. MC2010-35, R2010-5, and R2010-6, Order No. 549, Order Adding Inbound Market Dominant Multi-Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators 1 to the Market Dominant Product List and Approving Included Agreements, September 30, 2010.

    III. Commission Action

    The Commission, in conformance with rule 3010.44, establishes Docket No. R2015-5 to consider issues raised in the Notice. The Commission invites comments from interested persons on whether the Agreement is consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3622 and the requirements of 39 CFR part 3010. Comments are due no later than September 14, 2015. The public portions of this filing can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov). Information on how to obtain access to non-public material appears in 39 CFR part 3007.

    The Commission appoints James F. Callow to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this docket.

    IV. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:

    1. The Commission establishes Docket No. R2015-5 for consideration of matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.

    2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, James F. Callow is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.

    3. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no later than September 14, 2015.

    4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register.

    By the Commission.

    Ruth Ann Abrams, Acting Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20535 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Effective date: August 20, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 14, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 140 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2015-79, CP2015-126.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20533 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    PRESIDIO TRUST Notice of Public Meeting of Presidio Institute Advisory Council AGENCY:

    The Presidio Trust.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting of Presidio Institute Advisory Council.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given that a public meeting of the Presidio Institute Advisory Council (Council) will be held from 12:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Monday, September 21, 2015. The meeting is open to the public, and oral public comment will be received at the meeting. The Council was formed to advise the Executive Director of the Presidio Trust (Trust) on matters pertaining to the rehabilitation and reuse of Fort Winfield Scott as a new national center focused on service and leadership development.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Trust's Executive Director, in consultation with the Chair of the Board of Directors, has determined that the Council is in the public interest and supports the Trust in performing its duties and responsibilities under the Presidio Trust Act, 16 U.S.C. 460bb appendix.

    The Council advises on the establishment of a new national center (Presidio Institute) focused on service and leadership development, with specific emphasis on: (a) Assessing the role and key opportunities of a national center dedicated to service and leadership at Fort Scott in the Presidio of San Francisco; (b) providing recommendations related to the Presidio Institute's programmatic goals, target audiences, content, implementation and evaluation; (c) providing guidance on a phased development approach that leverages a combination of funding sources including philanthropy; and (d) making recommendations on how to structure the Presidio Institute's business model to best achieve the Presidio Institute's mission and ensure long-term financial self-sufficiency.

    Meeting Agenda: This meeting of the Council will include a discussion of the Presidio Institute's 2016 performance metrics and action plan. The period from 1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. will be reserved for public comments.

    Public Comment: Individuals who would like to offer comments are invited to sign-up at the meeting and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. Written comments may be submitted on cards that will be provided at the meeting, via mail to Aimee Vincent, Presidio Institute, 1201 Ralston Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052, or via email to [email protected] If individuals submitting written comments request that their address or other contact information be withheld from public disclosure, it will be honored to the extent allowable by law. Such requests must be stated prominently at the beginning of the comments. The Trust will make available for public inspection all submissions from organizations or businesses and from persons identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations and businesses.

    Time: The meeting will be held from 12:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Monday, September 21, 2015.

    Location: The meeting will be held at the Presidio Institute, Building 1202 Ralston Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94129.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Additional information is available online at http://www.presidio.gov/explore/Pages/fort-scott-council.aspx.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Andrea Andersen, Acting General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20560 Filed 8-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-4R-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-75709; File No. SR-BX-2015-047] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding NASDAQ Last Sale Plus August 14, 2015.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on, August 5, 2015, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (“BX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend BX Rule 7039 (BX Last Sale Data Feeds) with language regarding NASDAQ Last Sale Plus (“NLS Plus”), a comprehensive data feed offered by NASDAQ OMX Information LLC.3

    3 NASDAQ OMX Information LLC is a subsidiary of The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (“NASDAQ OMX”).

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The purpose of this proposal is to amend BX Rule 7039 by adding new section (b) regarding NLS Plus.

    This proposal is based on the recent approval order regarding the codification of NLS Plus in NASDAQ Rule 7039,4 in a manner similar to products of other markets.5

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75257 (June 22, 2015), 80 FR 36862 (June 26, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-055) (order approving proposed rule change regarding NASDAQ Last Sale Plus in NASDAQ Rule 7039(d)) (the “NLS Plus Approval Order”). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74972 (May 15, 2015), 80 FR 29370 (May 21, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-055) (notice of filing of proposed rule change regarding NASDAQ Last Sale Plus) (the “NLS Plus notice”).

    5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73918 (December 23, 2014), 79 FR 78920 (December 31, 2014) (SR-BATS-2014-055; SR-BYX-2014-030; SR-EDGA-2014-25; SR-EDGX-2014-25) (order approving market data product called BATS One Feed being offered by four affiliated exchanges). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73553 (November 6, 2014), 79 FR 67491 (November 13, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-40) (order granting approval to establish the NYSE Best Quote & Trades (“BQT”) Data Feed). These exchanges have likewise instituted fees for their products.

    NLS Plus allows data distributors to access the three last sale products offered by each of NASDAQ OMX's three U.S. equity markets.6 NLS Plus also reflects cumulative consolidated volume (“consolidated volume”) of real-time trading activity across all U.S. exchanges for Tape C securities and 15-minute delayed information for Tape A and Tape B securities.7 In offering NLS Plus, NASDAQ OMX Information LLC is, as discussed below, acting as a redistributor of last sale products already offered by NASDAQ, BX, and PSX and volume information provided by the securities information processors (“SIPs”) for Tape A, B, and C.

    6 The NASDAQ OMX U.S. equity markets include The NASDAQ Stock Market (“NASDAQ”), “BX, and NASDAQ OMX PSX (“PSX”) (together known as the “NASDAQ OMX equity markets”). PSX will shortly file a similar companion proposal regarding NLS Plus. NASDAQ's last sale product, NASDAQ Last Sale, includes last sale information from the FINRA/NASDAQ Trade Reporting Facility (“FINRA/NASDAQ TRF”), which is jointly operated by NASDAQ and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). For proposed rule changes submitted with respect to NASDAQ Last Sale, BX Last Sale, and PSX Last Sale, see, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57965 (June 16, 2008), 73 FR 35178, (June 20, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-060) (order approving NASDAQ Last Sale data feeds pilot); 61112 (December 4, 2009), 74 FR 65569, (December 10, 2009) (SR-BX-2009-077) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness regarding BX Last Sale data feeds); and 62876 (September 9, 2010), 75 FR 56624, (September 16, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-120) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness regarding PSX Last Sale data feeds).

    7 Tape A and Tape B securities are disseminated pursuant to the Security Industry Automation Corporation's (“SIAC”) Consolidated Tape Association Plan/Consolidated Quotation System, or CTA/CQS (“CTA”). Tape C securities are disseminated pursuant to the NASDAQ Unlisted Trading Privileges (“UTP”) Plan.

    NLS Plus, which is proposed to be codified in BX Rule 7039(b) in the same form as in NASDAQ Rule 7039(d), allows data distributors to access last sale products offered by each of NASDAQ OMX's three equity exchanges. Thus, NLS Plus includes all transactions from all of NASDAQ OMX's equity markets, as well as FINRA/NASDAQ TRF data that is included in the current NLS product. In addition, NLS Plus features total cross-market volume information at the issue level, thereby providing redistribution of consolidated volume information from SIPs for Tape A, B, and C securities. Thus, NLS Plus covers all securities listed on NASDAQ and New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) (now under the Intercontinental Exchange (“ICE”) umbrella), as well as U.S. “regional” exchanges such as NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca, and BATS (also known as BATS/Direct Edge).8 The Exchange will, as discussed below, file a separate proposal regarding the NLS Plus fee structure.

    8 Registered U.S. exchanges are listed at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mrexchanges.shtml.

    NLS Plus has been offered since 2010 via NASDAQ OMX Information LLC.9 NASDAQ OMX Information LLC is a subsidiary of NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., separate and apart from The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC and the Exchange. As such, NASDAQ OMX Information LLC redistributes last sale data that has been the subject of a proposed rule change filed with the Commission at prices that also have been the subject of a proposed rule change filed with the Commission. As discussed below, NASDAQ OMX Information LLC distributes no data that is not equally available to all market data vendors.

    9 While NLS Plus is described in the NLS Plus notice and NLS Plus Approval Order, NLS Plus is also described online at http://nasdaqtrader.com/content/technicalsupport/specifications/dataproducts/NLSPlusSpecification.pdf. In addition, the annual administrative and other fees for NLS Plus are currently described in NASDAQ Rule 7039(d) and noted at http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=DPUSdata#ls.

    The Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to add NLS Plus to BX Rule 7039, which currently describes the BX Last Sale data feed offering, to fully reflect NLS Plus. NLS Plus as proposed to be codified in BX Rule 7039(b) is exactly the same as NLS Plus in NASDAQ Rule 7039(d).

    Similar to NLS, NLS Plus offers data for all U.S. equities via two separate data channels: the first data channel reflects NASDAQ, BX, and PSX trades with real-time consolidated volume for NASDAQ-listed securities; and the second data channel reflects trades with delayed consolidated volume for NYSE, NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca and BATS-listed securities.10 NLS Plus, like NLS, is used by industry professionals and retail investors looking for a cost effective, easy-to-administer, high quality market data product with the characteristics of NLS Plus. The provision of multiple options for investors to receive market data was a primary goal of the market data amendments adopted by Regulation NMS.11 Finally, NLS Plus provides investors with options for receiving market data that parallel products currently offered by BATS and BATS Y, EDGA, and EDGX and NYSE equity exchanges.12

    10 These NLS Plus channels are each made up of a series of sequenced messages so that each message is variable in length based on the message type and is typically delivered using a higher level protocol.

    11 However, the Exchange notes that under Rule 603 of Regulation NMS, see 17 CFR 242.603(c), NLS Plus cannot be substituted for consolidated data in all instances in which consolidated data is used and certain subscribers are still required to purchase consolidated data for trading and order-routing purposes. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, at 37503 (June 29, 2005) (Regulation NMS Adopting Release).

    12See supra note 5.

    In addition to last sale information, NLS Plus also disseminates the following data elements: Trade Price, Trade Size, Sale Condition Modifiers, Cumulative Consolidated Market Volume, End of Day Trade Summary, Adjusted Closing Price, IPO Information, and Bloomberg ID (together the “data elements”). NLS Plus also features and disseminates the following messages: Market Wide Circuit Breaker, Reg SHO Short Sale Price Test Restricted Indicator, Trading Action, Symbol Directory, Adjusted Closing Price, and End of Day Trade Summary (together the “messages”).13 The overwhelming majority of these data elements and messages are exactly the same as, and in fact are sourced from, NLS, BX Last Sale, and PSX Last Sale. Only two data elements (consolidated volume and Bloomberg ID) are, as discussed below, sourced from other publicly accessible or obtainable resources.

    13 The Reg SHO Short Sale Price Test Restricted Indicator message is disseminated intra-day when a security has a price drop of 10% or more from the adjusted prior day's NASDAQ Official Closing Price. Trading Action indicates the current trading status of a security to the trading community, and indicates when a security is halted, paused, released for quotation, and released for trading. Symbol Directory is disseminated at the start of each trading day for all active NASDAQ and non-NASDAQ-listed security symbols. Adjusted Closing Price is disseminated at the start of each trading day for all active symbols in the NASDAQ system, and reflects the previous trading day's official closing price adjusted for any applicable corporate actions; if there were no corporate actions, however, the previous day's official closing price is used. End of Day Trade Summary is disseminated at the close of each trading day, as a summary for all active NASDAQ- and non-NASDAQ-listed securities. IPO Information reflects IPO general administrative messages from the UTP and CTA Level 1 feeds for Initial Public Offerings for all NASDAQ- and non-NASDAQ-listed securities.

    Consolidated volume reflects the consolidated volume at the time that the NLS Plus trade message is generated, and includes the volume for the issue symbol as reported on the consolidated market data feed. The consolidated volume is based on the real-time trades reported via the UTP Trade Data Feed (“UTDF”) and delayed trades reported via CTA. NASDAQ OMX calculates the real-time trading volume for its trading venues, and then adds the real-time trading volume for the other (non-NASDAQ OMX) trading venues as reported via the UTDF data feed. For non-NASDAQ-listed issues, the consolidated volume is based on trades reported via SIAC's Consolidated Tape System (“CTS”) for the issue symbol. The Exchange calculates the real-time trading volume for its trading venues, and then adds the 15-minute delayed trading volume for the other (non-NASDAQ OMX) trading venues as reported via the CTS data feed.14 The second data point that is not sourced from NLS, BX Last Sale, and PSX Last Sale is Bloomberg ID. This composite ID is a component of Bloomberg's Open Symbology and acts as a global security identifier that Bloomberg assigns to securities, and is available free of charge.15

    14 In order to distribute data derived from UTDF and CTA, NASDAQ OMX must pay monthly redistributor fees. However, because these fees are paid on an enterprise-wide basis and NASDAQ OMX includes such derived data in other data products, the use of the data in NLS Plus does not result in an additional incremental cost.

    15See http://bsym.bloomberg.com/sym/pages/bbgid-fact-sheet.pdf; http://bsym.bloomberg.com/sym/pages/NASDAQ_Adopts_BSYM.pdf.

    NLS Plus may be received by itself or in combination with NASDAQ Basic.16 In the latter case, the subscriber receives all of the elements contained in NLS Plus as well as the best bid and best offer information provided by NASDAQ Basic.

    16 As provided in NASDAQ Rule 7047, NASDAQ Basic provides the information contained in NLS, together with NASDAQ's best bid and best offer.

    The Exchange believes that market data distributors may use the NLS Plus data feed to feed stock tickers, portfolio trackers, trade alert programs, time and sale graphs, and other display systems.

    The Exchange proposes one housekeeping change. The Exchange adds the phrase “BX Last Sale” in BX Rule 7039(a) to make it clear that section (a) refers to BX Last Sale (whereas proposed section (b) refers to NLS Plus). This change is non-substantive.

    With respect to latency, the path for distribution of NLS Plus is not faster than the path for distribution that would be used by a market data vendor to distribute an independently created NLS Plus-like product. As such, the NLS Plus data feed is a data product that a competing market data vendor could create and sell without being in a disadvantaged position relative to the Exchange. In recognition that the Exchange is the source of its own market data and with NASDAQ and PSX being equity markets owned by NASDAQ OMX, the Exchange represents that the source of the market data it would use to create proposed NLS Plus is available to other vendors. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the data elements and messages 17 in NLS Plus are exactly the same as, and in fact are sourced from, NLS, BX Last Sale, and PSX Last Sale, each of which is available to other market data vendors.18 The Exchange, NASDAQ, and PSX will continue to make available these individual underlying data elements, and thus, the source of the market data that would be used to create the proposed NLS Plus is the same as what is available to other market data vendors.

    17See text related to notes 14 and 15 supra.

    18 Only two data elements are, as discussed above, sourced from other publicly accessible or obtainable resources.

    In order to create NLS Plus, the system creating and supporting NLS Plus receives the individual data feeds from each of the NASDAQ OMX equity markets and, in turn, aggregates and summarizes that data to create NLS Plus and then distribute it to end users. This is the same process that a competing market data vendor would undergo should it want to create a market data product similar to NLS Plus to distribute to its end users. A competing market data vendor could receive the individual data feeds from each of the NASDAQ OMX equity markets at the same time the system creating and supporting NLS Plus would for it to create NLS Plus. Therefore, a competing market data vendor could, as discussed, obtain the underlying data elements from the NASDAQ OMX equity markets on the same latency basis as the system that would be performing the aggregation and consolidation of proposed NLS Plus, and provide a similar product to its customers with the same latency they could achieve by purchasing NLS Plus from the Exchange. As such, the Exchange would not have any unfair advantage over competing market data vendors with respect to NLS Plus. Moreover, in terms of NLS itself, the Exchange would access the underlying feed from the same point as would a market data vendor; as discussed, the Exchange would not have a speed advantage. Likewise, NLS Plus would not have any speed advantage vis-à-vis competing market data vendors with respect to access to end user customers.

    With regard to cost, the Exchange will file a separate proposal with the Commission regarding fees that will be similar in nature to NASDAQ Rule 7039(d). The proposal would be designed to ensure that vendors could compete with the Exchange by creating a similar product as NLS Plus. The Exchange expects that the pricing will reflect the incremental cost of the aggregation and consolidation function for NLS Plus, and would not be lower than the cost to a vendor creating a competing product, including the cost of receiving the underlying data feeds. The pricing the Exchange would charge clients for NLS Plus would enable a vendor to receive the underlying data feeds and offer a similar product on a competitive basis and with no greater cost than the Exchange. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that vendors could readily offer a product similar to NLS Plus on a competitive basis at a similar cost.

    As described in more detail below, the Exchange believes that the NLS Plus data offering benefits the public and investors and that the proposal is consistent with the Act.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,19 in general, and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,20 in particular, in that the proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

    19 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    20 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The proposal is to add section (b) to BX Rule 7039 regarding the NLS Plus data offering. The Exchange believes that the proposal facilitates transactions in securities, removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protects investors and the public interest by making permanent the availability of an additional means by which investors may access information about securities transactions, thereby providing investors with additional options for accessing information that may help to inform their trading decisions. Given that Section 11A the Act 21 requires the dissemination of last sale reports in core data, the Exchange believes that the inclusion of the same data in NLS Plus is also consistent with the Act.

    21 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.

    The Exchange notes that the Commission has determined that the inclusion of NLS Plus in NASDAQ Rule 7039(d), upon which proposed BX Rule 7039(b) is modelled, was consistent with the Act.22 The Commission has also recently approved data products on several exchanges that are similar to NLS Plus, and specifically determined that the approved data products were consistent with the Act.23 NLS Plus provides market participants with an additional option for receiving market data that has already been the subject of a proposed rule change and that is available from many market data vendors.

    22See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75257 (June 22, 2015), 80 FR 36862 (June 26, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-055).

    23See supra note 5.

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted SROs and broker-dealers (“BDs”) increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that the NLS Plus market data product is precisely the sort of market data product that the Commission envisioned w