Federal Register Vol. 80, No.162,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 162 (August 21, 2015)

Page Range50755-51111
FR Document

80_FR_162
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 50755 - Continuation of U.S. Drug Interdiction Assistance to the Government of ColombiaPDF
80 FR 50814 - Exception From Passive Income for Certain Foreign Insurance Companies; Hearing; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 50825 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; Supplemental Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement; Scoping Process; Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 50867 - Notice of Availability of the Moab Master Leasing Plan and Draft Resource Management Plan Amendments/Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Moab and Monticello Field Offices, UTPDF
80 FR 50868 - Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area Advisory CouncilPDF
80 FR 50923 - New Buffalo Savings Bank, New Buffalo, Michigan; Approval of Conversion ApplicationPDF
80 FR 50808 - Special Conditions: Cirrus Aircraft Corporation, SF50; Auto Throttle.PDF
80 FR 50843 - Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC, Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Stage 3 Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental IssuesPDF
80 FR 50848 - Igiugig Village Council; Notice Concluding Pre-Filing Process and Approving Process Plan and SchedulePDF
80 FR 50846 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725); Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
80 FR 50847 - Common Performance Metrics; Request for Information on Common Performance Metrics for RTOs and ISOs and Utilities Outside RTO and ISO RegionsPDF
80 FR 50848 - LNG Development Company, LLC; Oregon Pipeline Company, LLC; Northwest Pipeline LLC; Notice of Public Meetings for Comments On the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Oregon LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project and Washington Expansion ProjectPDF
80 FR 50765 - Special Local Regulation; Suncoast Super Boat Grand Prix; Gulf of Mexico, Sarasota, FLPDF
80 FR 50769 - Safety Zone; Cleveland National Air Show; Lake Erie and Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, OHPDF
80 FR 50860 - Recreational Boating Accident Reporting Manual, COMDTINST M16782.1PDF
80 FR 50771 - Safety Zone, Swim Around Charleston; Charleston, SCPDF
80 FR 50773 - Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Assistance to States for the Education of Children With DisabilitiesPDF
80 FR 50821 - Black Hills National Forest Advisory BoardPDF
80 FR 50853 - Federal Home Loan Bank Community Support Program-Opportunity To Comment on Members Subject To ReviewPDF
80 FR 50905 - Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; TxDOT Audit ReportPDF
80 FR 50826 - Procurement List; Additions and DeletionsPDF
80 FR 50825 - Procurement List; Proposed Addition and DeletionPDF
80 FR 50870 - Certain Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof; Institution of InvestigationPDF
80 FR 50923 - Minority Depository Institutions Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 50794 - Idaho: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program; RevisionPDF
80 FR 50849 - Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Industrial Activities Availability for Idaho, Federal Operators in Washington, and the Spokane TribePDF
80 FR 50849 - Notice of Administrative Settlement Agreement Pursuant to Section 122(H) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as AmendedPDF
80 FR 50833 - Applications for New Awards; Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to Non-State Educational Agency (Non-SEA) Eligible Applicants for Planning, Program Design, and Initial Implementation and for DisseminationPDF
80 FR 50804 - Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against RadiationPDF
80 FR 50862 - Notice To Extend the Comment Period for the Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants; NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 2PDF
80 FR 50875 - Lost Creek ISR, LLC; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 50922 - V and S Railway, LLC-Abandonment Exemption-in Pueblo, Crowley, and Kiowa Counties, Colo.PDF
80 FR 50854 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 50757 - Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Clothes Washers; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 50832 - Availability of a Draft Feasibility Study With Integrated Environmental Impact Statement, Ala Wai Canal Project, Oahu, HIPDF
80 FR 50866 - Notice of Intent To Collect Fees on the Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River in Blaine, Chouteau, Fergus, and Phillips Counties, MTPDF
80 FR 50757 - Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Definitions and Standards for Grid-Enabled Water HeatersPDF
80 FR 50843 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge ReservationPDF
80 FR 50824 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 50857 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Web-Based Resource for Youth About Clinical ResearchPDF
80 FR 50827 - Electronic Filing of Targeting/Enforcement Data: Announcement of PGA Message Set Test and Request for ParticipantsPDF
80 FR 50761 - Update to List of Countries Where Persons in the United States May Request Department of Defense Assistance in Obtaining Priority Delivery of ContractsPDF
80 FR 50855 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 50823 - MeetingsPDF
80 FR 50871 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
80 FR 50873 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection: Certification of Compliance With the Statutory Eligibility Requirements of the Violence Against Women Act as AmendedPDF
80 FR 50822 - Notice of Intent To Request Revision and Extension of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
80 FR 50858 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
80 FR 50923 - Agency Information Collection (Notice of Lapse-Government Life Insurance/Application for Reinstatement (29-389) and Notice of Past Due Payment/Application for Reinstatement (29-389-1)) Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 50917 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
80 FR 50869 - Barium Chloride From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year ReviewPDF
80 FR 50918 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
80 FR 50912 - Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; American Trucking Associations, Inc.PDF
80 FR 50854 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 50914 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently-Approved Information Collection Request: Motor Carrier Identification ReportPDF
80 FR 50915 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
80 FR 50861 - Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 50851 - Federal Advisory Committee Act; Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability CouncilPDF
80 FR 50869 - Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; Use of iNaturalist by the National Park Service To Record Natural History ObservationsPDF
80 FR 50762 - Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification; Spirulina ExtractPDF
80 FR 50922 - New England Central Railroad, Inc.-Acquisition and Operation Exemption-Claremont Concord Railroad Corp.PDF
80 FR 50821 - Mineral County Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 50820 - Mineral County Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 50768 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hood Canal, Port Gamble, WAPDF
80 FR 50768 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lewis and Clark River, Astoria, ORPDF
80 FR 50864 - Sierra Front-Northwest Great Basin Resource Advisory CouncilPDF
80 FR 50921 - Decision That Certain Nonconforming Motor Vehicles Are Eligible for ImportationPDF
80 FR 50874 - Information Collection: Billing Instructions for NRC Cost-Reimbursement Type ContractsPDF
80 FR 50877 - Information Collection: Requests to Agreement States for InformationPDF
80 FR 50823 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Oklahoma Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Hear Testimony Regarding the School to Prison Pipeline in the StatePDF
80 FR 50920 - Notice of a Buy America Waiver for Replacement Gondola ComponentsPDF
80 FR 50887 - Amplify Investments LLC and Amplify ETF Trust; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 50896 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 50881 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 50885 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Verifiable Disruption or Malfunction of Exchange SystemsPDF
80 FR 50898 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Verifiable Disruption or Malfunction of Exchange SystemsPDF
80 FR 50896 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Amend Rule 13.8 To Describe the Market Data Product EDGX Book ViewerPDF
80 FR 50881 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 13.8 To Describe the Market Data Product EDGA Book ViewerPDF
80 FR 50900 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 11.22 To Describe the Market Data Product BZX Book ViewerPDF
80 FR 50883 - Designation of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority To Administer Professional Qualification Tests for Associated Persons of Registered Municipal AdvisorsPDF
80 FR 50845 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 50831 - Meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS)PDF
80 FR 50902 - Kentucky Disaster #KY-00059PDF
80 FR 50879 - International Mail ContractPDF
80 FR 50872 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection Sequestered Juror Information FormPDF
80 FR 50860 - Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
80 FR 50856 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 50858 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 50856 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 50859 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 50902 - Kentucky Disaster #KY-00058PDF
80 FR 50903 - Colorado Disaster Number CO-00016PDF
80 FR 50903 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 50875 - Department of Energy; Yucca Mountain, Nye County, NevadaPDF
80 FR 50878 - Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and PreparednessPDF
80 FR 51090 - Migratory Bird Hunting; Final Frameworks for Early-Season Migratory Bird Hunting RegulationsPDF
80 FR 50880 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 50815 - Periodic ReportingPDF
80 FR 50789 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Kansas; Cross-State Air Pollution RulePDF
80 FR 50816 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Kansas; Cross State Air Pollution RulePDF
80 FR 50852 - Notice to all Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10483, Mountain National Bank, Sevierville, TennesseePDF
80 FR 50852 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10479, Central Arizona Bank, Scottsdale, ArizonaPDF
80 FR 50851 - Notice to all Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10437, Palm Desert National Bank Palm Desert, CAPDF
80 FR 50852 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10420, BankEast, Knoxville, TennesseePDF
80 FR 50852 - Notice of Termination; 10320-Chestatee State Bank Dawsonville, GAPDF
80 FR 50852 - Notice of Termination: 4650-Hamilton Bank, N. A. Miami, FloridaPDF
80 FR 50819 - Notice of Committee Meeting and Virtual Meeting of the Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United StatesPDF
80 FR 50873 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water ActPDF
80 FR 50820 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 50926 - Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Rulemaking To Revise Critical Habitat for Hawaiian Monk SealsPDF
80 FR 50805 - Proposed Amendments to the Stress Test RulePDF
80 FR 50797 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the National Southwire Aluminum (NSA) Superfund SitePDF
80 FR 50817 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the National Southwire Aluminum Superfund SitePDF
80 FR 50990 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical and Geotechnical Survey in Cook Inlet, AlaskaPDF
80 FR 50812 - Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) AirplanesPDF
80 FR 50810 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault AviationPDF
80 FR 50864 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Coeur Rochester Mine Plan of Operations Amendment 10 and Closure Plan, Pershing County, NVPDF
80 FR 50904 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in PennsylvaniaPDF
80 FR 50785 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter StandardPDF
80 FR 50817 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter StandardPDF
80 FR 50758 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 50760 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 50863 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
80 FR 50855 - Notice of the Intent to Award a Single-Source Grant to the National Association of States United for Aging and DisabilitiesPDF
80 FR 50803 - United States Standards for Grades of Processed RaisinsPDF
80 FR 51052 - Data Requirements Rule for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2PDF
80 FR 51020 - Water Quality Standards Regulatory RevisionsPDF

Issue

80 162 Friday, August 21, 2015 Contents Administrative Administrative Conference of the United States NOTICES Meetings: Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United States, 50819-50820 2015-20621 Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES United States Standards for Grades of Processed Raisins, 50803-50804 2015-20391 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Forest Service

See

National Agricultural Statistics Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50820 2015-20618
Architectural Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board NOTICES Meetings: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 50823 2015-20702 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50854-50855 2015-20703 2015-20716 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Oklahoma Advisory Committee, 50823-50824 2015-20664 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Hood Canal, Port Gamble, WA, 50768 2015-20671 Lewis and Clark River, Astoria, OR, 50768-50769 2015-20670 Safety Zones: Cleveland National Air Show; Lake Erie and Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, OH, 50769-50771 2015-20739 Swim Around Charleston; Charleston, SC, 50771-50773 2015-20737 Special Local Regulations: Suncoast Super Boat Grand Prix; Gulf of Mexico, Sarasota, FL, 50765-50767 2015-20741 NOTICES Meetings: Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee, 50861-50862 2015-20681 Recreational Boating Accident Reporting Manual, COMDTINST M16782.1, 50860-50861 2015-20738 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50824-50825 2015-20709
Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 50825-50827 2015-20731 2015-20732 Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Single-Source Grant Awards: National Association of States United for Aging and Disabilities, 50855-50856 2015-20392 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Approval of Conversion Application: New Buffalo Savings Bank, New Buffalo, Michigan, 50923 2015-20761 Meetings: Minority Depository Institutions Advisory Committee, 50923 2015-20727 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission NOTICES Electronic Filing of Targeting/Enforcement Data; PGA Message Set Test and Request for Participants, 50827-50831 2015-20707 Defense Department Defense Department See

Engineers Corps

NOTICES Meetings: Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, 50831-50832 2015-20650
Education Department Education Department RULES Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities, 50773-50785 2015-20736 NOTICES Applications for New Awards: Charter Schools Program Grants to Non-State Educational Agency Eligible Applicants for Planning, Program Design, and Initial Implementation and for Dissemination, 50833-50842 2015-20723 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

RULES Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Definitions and Standards for Grid-Enabled Water Heaters, 50757-50758 2015-20712 Test Procedures for Clothes Washers; Correction, 50757 2015-20715 NOTICES Meetings: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge Reservation, 50843 2015-20710
Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Ala Wai Canal Project, Oahu, HI; Draft Feasibility Study, 50832-50833 2015-20714 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: District of Columbia; Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements for the 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard, 50785-50789 2015-20527 Kansas; Cross State Air Pollution Rule, 50789-50794 2015-20629 Data Requirements Rule for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 51052-51088 2015-20367 Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program: Idaho; Revision, 50794-50797 2015-20726 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the National Southwire Aluminum Superfund Site, 50797-50802 2015-20611 Water Quality Standards, 51020-51050 2015-19821 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: District of Columbia; Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements for the 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard, 50817 2015-20526 Kansas; Cross State Air Pollution Rule, 50816-50817 2015-20628 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the National Southwire Aluminum Superfund Site, 50817-50818 2015-20609 NOTICES Administrative Settlement Agreements Under CERCLA, 50849 2015-20724 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permits: Stormwater Discharges from Industrial Activities Availability for Idaho, Federal Operators in Washington, and the Spokane Tribe, 50849-50851 2015-20725 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures: Miscellaneous Amendments, 50758-50761 2015-20521 2015-20522 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Dassault Aviation, 50810-50812 2015-20586 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Airplanes, 50812-50814 2015-20589 Special Conditions Cirrus Aircraft Corporation, SF50; Auto Throttle, 50808-50810 2015-20756 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Meetings: Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council, 50851 2015-20680 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receivership: BankEast, Knoxville, TN, 50852 2015-20624 Central Arizona Bank, Scottsdale, AZ, 50852 2015-20626 Chestatee State Bank, Dawsonville, GA, 50852 2015-20623 Hamilton Bank, N. A., Miami, FL, 50852 2015-20622 Mountain National Bank, Sevierville, TN, 50852-50853 2015-20627 Palm Desert National Bank, Palm Desert, CA, 50851-50852 2015-20625 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Guidance: Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, 50862 2015-20721 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50846-50847 2015-20744 Applications: Igiugig Village Council, 50848-50849 2015-20745 Combined Filings, 50845-50846 2015-20651 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC, and Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, LP; Stage 3 Project, 50843-50845 2015-20746 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: LNG Development Co., LLC, and Oregon Pipeline Co., Oregon LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project; LLC, Northwest Pipeline, LLC, Washington Expansion Project, 50848 2015-20742 Requests for Information: Common Performance Metrics, 50847-50848 2015-20743 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Federal Agency Actions: Pennsylvania; Proposed Highway, 50904 2015-20563 Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program; TxDOT Audit Report, 50905-50912 2015-20733 Federal Housing Finance Agency Federal Housing Finance Agency PROPOSED RULES Stress Test, 50805-50808 2015-20613 NOTICES Federal Home Loan Bank Community Support Program: Opportunity to Comment on Members Subject to Review, 50853-50854 2015-20734 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Motor Carrier Identification Report, 50914-50915 2015-20683 Hours of Service of Drivers; Exemption Applications: American Trucking Associations, Inc., 50912-50914 2015-20686 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, 50918-50920 2015-20687 Vision, 50915-50918 2015-20682 2015-20691 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 50854 2015-20685 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Buy America Waivers, 50920-50921 2015-20662 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Migratory Bird Hunting: Final Frameworks for Early Season Migratory Bird Hunting, 51090-51111 2015-20636 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Color Additives: Spirulina Extract; Certification Exemption, 50762-50765 2015-20676 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board, 50821 2015-20735 Mineral County Resource Advisory Committee, 50820-50822 2015-20672 2015-20673 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Children and Families Administration

See

Community Living Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 50863-50864 2015-20486 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Update to List of Countries Where Persons in the United States May Request Department of Defense Assistance in Obtaining Priority Delivery of Contracts, 50761-50762 2015-20704 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Exception From Passive Income for Certain Foreign Insurance Companies; Hearing; Correction, 50814-50815 2015-20849 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Barium Chloride from China; Expedited Five-Year Review, 50869-50870 2015-20689 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof, 50870-50871 2015-20730 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50871-50872 2015-20700 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Certification of Compliance with the Statutory Eligibility Requirements of the Violence Against Women Act as Amended, 50873 2015-20699 Sequestered Juror Information Form, 50872-50873 2015-20647 Proposed Consent Decrees under the Clean Water Act, 50873-50874 2015-20620 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Coeur Rochester Mine Plan of Operations Amendment 10 and Closure Plan, Pershing County, NV, 50864-50866 2015-20582 Moab Master Leasing Plan and Draft Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Moab and Monticello Field Offices, UT, 50867-50868 2015-20784 Fee Collections: Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River in Blaine, Chouteau, Fergus, and Phillips Counties, MT, 50866-50867 2015-20713 Meetings: Sierra Front-Northwest Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, 50864 2015-20668 National Agricultural National Agricultural Statistics Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50822-50823 2015-20695 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Petitions; Certain Nonconforming Motor Vehicles Eligible for Importation, 50921-50922 2015-20667 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Web-Based Resource for Youth about Clinical Research, 50857-50858 2015-20708 Charter Renewals: Advisory Committee to the Deputy Director for Intramural Research, 50860 2015-20646 Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 50858-50859 2015-20694 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 50856 2015-20645 National Cancer Institute, 50858-50859 2015-20642 2015-20644 National Institute on Aging, 50856-50857 2015-20643 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Critical Habitat for Hawaiian Monk Seals, 50926-50988 2015-20617 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; Scoping Process; Request for Comments, 50825 2015-20798 Takes of Marine Mammals: Geophysical and Geotechnical Survey in Cook Inlet, AK, 50990-51018 2015-20605 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Use of iNaturalist by the National Park Service to Record Natural History Observations, 50869 2015-20677 Meetings: Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area Advisory Council, 50868-50869 2015-20782 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation, 50804-50805 2015-20722 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Billing Instructions for NRC Cost-Reimbursement Type Contracts, 50874-50875 2015-20666 Requests to Agreement States for Information, 50877-50878 2015-20665 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Department of Energy; Yucca Mountain, Nye County, NV, 50875-50877 2015-20638 Guidance: Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness, 50878-50879 2015-20637 Temporary Exemptions: Lost Creek ISR, LLC; Correction, 50875 2015-20719 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Periodic Reporting, 50815-50816 2015-20633 NOTICES International Mail Contract, 50879-50880 2015-20648 New Postal Products, 50880-50881 2015-20634 2015-20635 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Colombia; Continuation of Drug Interdiction Assistance (Presidential Determination No. 2015-10 of August 5, 2015), 50755 2015-20857 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50881, 50896 2015-20658 2015-20659 Applications: Amplify Investments LLC and Amplify ETF Trust, 50887-50896 2015-20660 Orders: Designation of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority to Administer Professional Qualification Tests for Associated Persons of Registered Municipal Advisors, 50883-50885 2015-20652 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 50900-50902 2015-20653 EDGA Exchange, Inc., 50881-50883 2015-20654 EDGX Exchange, Inc., 50896-50898 2015-20655 NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., 50885-50887 2015-20657 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 50898-50900 2015-20656 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50903 2015-20639 Disaster Declarations: Colorado; Amendment 1, 50903 2015-20640 Kentucky, 50902-50903 2015-20641 2015-20649 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: V and S Railway, LLC, Pueblo, Crowley, and Kiowa Counties, CO, 50922 2015-20718 Acquisition and Operation Exemptions: New England Central Railroad, Inc.; Claremont Concord Railroad Corp., 50922-50923 2015-20675 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Internal Revenue Service

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Notice of Lapse - Government Life Insurance/Application for Reinstatement and Notice of Past Due Payment/Application for Reinstatement, 50923-50924 2015-20693 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 50926-50988 2015-20617 Part III Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 50990-51018 2015-20605 Part IV Environmental Protection Agency, 51020-51050 2015-19821 Part V Environmental Protection Agency, 51052-51088 2015-20367 Part VI Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 51090-51111 2015-20636 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.

80 162 Friday, August 21, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 [Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0009] RIN 1904-AC97 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Clothes Washers; Correction AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

On August 5, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy published a final rule amending the test procedures for clothes washers. This correction addresses a numbering error in the regulatory text, by which two provisions were inadvertently assigned the same section number. Neither the error nor the correction in this document affects the substance of the rulemaking or any of the conclusions reached in support of the final rule.

DATES:

Effective Date: September 4, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email: [email protected]

Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a final rule in the Federal Register on August 5, 2015 (“the August 2015 final rule”), amending the test procedures for clothes washers. 80 FR 46729. In the rule, DOE made a drafting error in the regulatory text within section 3.10, Energy consumption for the purpose of determining the cycle selection(s) to be included in the energy test cycle, of Appendix J2 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Automatic and Semi-automatic Clothes Washers. Specifically, DOE inadvertently designated two provisions as section 3.10.3 of that appendix. However, the substance of both provisions are correct and are to be retained in the test procedure. The effective date for this rule is September 4, 2015.

In order to remedy this error, DOE is renumbering the relevant provisions on page 46781 of the Federal Register in the August 2015 final rule at 80 FR 46729, as set forth below. The effective date of the August 2015 final rule at 80 FR 46729 remains September 4, 2015.

Correction

In FR Doc. 2014-18330 appearing on page 46729 in the issue of Wednesday, August 5, 2015, the following correction is made:

Appendix J2 to Subpart B of Part 430 [Corrected]

On page 46781, third column, section 3.10.4 is redesignated as 3.10.5, and the two sections 3.10.3 are redesignated as 3.10.3 and 3.10.4, respectively.

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 14, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2015-20715 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket Number EERE-2015-BT-STD-0017] RIN 1904-AD55 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Definitions and Standards for Grid-Enabled Water Heaters AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule; technical correction.

SUMMARY:

On August 11, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy published a final rule in the Federal Register to place in the Code of Federal Regulations the energy conservation standards and related definitions that Congress prescribed for grid-enabled water heaters in the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, which amended the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. Due to a drafting error, a numeral was omitted from the energy factor equation for grid-enabled water heaters. This document corrects that error.

DATES:

Effective: September 21, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email: [email protected]

Ms. Johanna Hariharan, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a final rule in the Federal Register on August 11, 2015 (“the August 2015 final rule”) to place in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) the energy conservation standards and related definitions that Congress prescribed for grid-enabled water heaters in the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015 (EEIA 2015), which amended the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA). 80 FR 48004. Since the publication of that final rule, it has come to DOE's attention that, due to a drafting oversight, the August 2015 final rule incorrectly omitted a numeral in the equation to determine the energy factor for grid-enabled water heaters. This final rule corrects this error, adding the missing numeral.

II. Need for Correction

As published, the August 2015 final rule contains a typographical error in the first column of 80 FR 48010, in § 430.32(d)(2), “Grid-enabled water heaters.” The equation in that paragraph, “1.06−(0.00168 × Rated Storage Volume in gallons)” should read “1.061−(0.00168 × Rated Storage Volume in gallons).” This revision accurately reflects the values found in the energy factor equation in the preamble (80 FR 48007), as well as the text in EEIA 2015 and, consequently, EPCA. Thus, the final rule has been corrected to eliminate this error. DOE notes that this equation to measure the energy factor for grid-enabled water heaters has been the law under EPCA through EEIA 2015 since April 30, 2015, and that the August 2015 final rule and this correction simply place that language into DOE's codified regulations.

III. Procedural Requirements

DOE has concluded that the determinations made pursuant to the various procedural requirements applicable to the August 2015 final rule remain unchanged for this final rule technical correction. These determinations are set forth in the August 2015 final rule. 80 FR 48004, 48009-10 (Aug. 11, 2015).

List of Subjects in 10 CFR part 430

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 14, 2015 Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of Chapter II, Subchapter D, of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

2. Section 430.32 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows:
§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and their compliance dates.

(d) * * *

(2) Grid-enabled water heaters. The energy factor of grid-enabled water heaters, as of April 30, 2015, shall not be less than 1.061−(0.00168 × Rated Storage Volume in gallons).

[FR Doc. 2015-20712 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31032; Amdt. No. 3656] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES:

This rule is effective August 21, 2015. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 21, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

For Examination

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;

2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard A. Dunham III, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

The Rule

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore— (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Issued in Washington, DC on July 31, 2015. John Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

§§ 97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, 97.35 [Amended]
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication AIRAC Date State City Airport FDC No. FDC Date Subject 17-Sep-15 KS Syracuse Syracuse-Hamilton County Muni 5/0596 07/21/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig. 17-Sep-15 NM Albuquerque Albuquerque Intl Sunport 5/0613 07/21/15 RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 21, Orig-A. 17-Sep-15 TX El Paso El Paso Intl 5/0614 07/21/15 RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 4, Orig-D. 17-Sep-15 TX El Paso El Paso Intl 5/0615 07/21/15 RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 4, Orig-C. 17-Sep-15 GA Atlanta Dekalb-Peachtree 5/1465 07/16/15 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 21L, Amdt 1A. 17-Sep-15 GA Atlanta Dekalb-Peachtree 5/1466 07/16/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 21L, Amdt 8B. 17-Sep-15 VA Danville Danville Rgnl 5/2541 07/15/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Orig. 17-Sep-15 VA Brookneal Brookneal/Campbell County 5/3677 07/16/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Orig. 17-Sep-15 GA Macon Middle Georgia Rgnl 5/4287 07/15/15 ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 5, Amdt 1A. 17-Sep-15 GA Macon Middle Georgia Rgnl 5/4288 07/15/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1A. 17-Sep-15 MS Jackson Jackson-Medgar Wiley Evers Intl 5/5477 07/16/15 VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 16R, Orig. 17-Sep-15 MS Jackson Jackson-Medgar Wiley Evers Intl 5/5478 07/16/15 VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 16L, Orig. 17-Sep-15 MS Jackson Jackson-Medgar Wiley Evers Intl 5/5479 07/16/15 VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 34L, Orig. 17-Sep-15 MS Jackson Jackson-Medgar Wiley Evers Intl 5/5486 07/16/15 VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 34R, Orig-A. 17-Sep-15 PA Meadville Port Meadville 5/5667 07/16/15 LOC RWY 25, Amdt 6A. 17-Sep-15 PA Meadville Port Meadville 5/5669 07/16/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 1A. 17-Sep-15 PA Meadville Port Meadville 5/5671 07/16/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt 1A. 17-Sep-15 PA Meadville Port Meadville 5/5672 07/16/15 VOR RWY 7, Amdt 8A. 17-Sep-15 TX Rockport Aransas Co 5/6318 07/21/15 VOR/DME OR TACAN-A, Amdt 9. 17-Sep-15 NC Washington Warren Field 5/6319 07/21/15 LOC RWY 5, Amdt 1B. 17-Sep-15 NC Washington Warren Field 5/6436 07/21/15 VOR/DME RWY 5, Amdt 3. 17-Sep-15 NC Washington Warren Field 5/6437 07/21/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1. 17-Sep-15 NC Washington Warren Field 5/6438 07/21/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1. 17-Sep-15 NC Washington Warren Field 5/6439 07/21/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1. 17-Sep-15 NC Washington Warren Field 5/6440 07/21/15 Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Amdt 1. 17-Sep-15 NC Washington Warren Field 5/6528 07/21/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1A. 17-Sep-15 NC North Wilkesboro Wilkes County 5/8443 07/15/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 1, Orig-B. 17-Sep-15 VT Newport Newport State 5/9046 07/15/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig-A.
[FR Doc. 2015-20522 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31031; Amdt. No. 3655] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES:

This rule is effective August 21, 2015. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 21, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

For Examination

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001.

2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard A. Dunham III, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part § 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

The Rule

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—-(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979) ; and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Issued in Washington, DC on July 31, 2015. John Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: Effective 17 SEPTEMBER 2015 Atmore, AL, Atmore Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1B Fort Wayne, IN, Fort Wayne Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3 South Haven, MI, South Haven Area Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1C South Haven, MI, South Haven Area Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1C Effective 15 OCTOBER 2015 Anchorage, AK, Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl, ILS RWY 15, Amdt 6B Anchorage, AK, Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 7L, ILS RWY 7L (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 7L (SA CAT II), Amdt 3B Anchorage, AK, Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 7R, ILS RWY 7R (CAT II), ILS RWY 7R (CAT III), ILS RWY 7R (SA CAT I), Amdt 3B Anchorage, AK, Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7L, Amdt 2C Anchorage, AK, Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 2C Anchorage, AK, Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 7R, Amdt 4C Anchorage, AK, Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl, RNAV (RNP) RWY 33, Orig-A Anchorage, AK, Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 7R, Orig-A Nogales, AZ, Nogales Intl, NDB OR GPS-C, Amdt 2C, CANCELED Hawthorne, CA, Jack Northrop Field/Hawthorne Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4 Miami, FL, Miami Intl, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 8R, Orig-B Raymond, MS, John Bell Williams, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 4 New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 4L, Amdt 11 New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 4L, Amdt 1 New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, VOR RWY 4L, Amdt 1 Greenville, SC, Donaldson Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A Greenville, SC, Greenville Downtown, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 7 Tullahoma, TN, Tullahoma Rgnl Arpt/Wm Northern Field, VOR RWY 6, Amdt 1A, CANCELED Tullahoma, TN, Tullahoma Rgnl Arpt/Wm Northern Field, VOR RWY 24, Orig-D, CANCELED Tyler, TX, Tyler Pounds Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig Tyler, TX, Tyler Pounds Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig Tyler, TX, Tyler Pounds Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
[FR Doc. 2015-20521 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 700 [Docket No. 150720623-5623-01] RIN 0694-AG68 Update to List of Countries Where Persons in the United States May Request Department of Defense Assistance in Obtaining Priority Delivery of Contracts AGENCY:

Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) Regulations contain a list of countries with which the Department of Defense (DOD) has entered into security of supply arrangements. Persons in the United States may request the assistance of the DOD in seeking priority delivery from parties in those countries. This rule adds Spain to the list, reflecting DOD's recent security of supply arrangement with that country. Listing these countries in the DPAS Regulations is purely informational and does not affect any right, duty or prohibition that applies to any person under those regulations.

DATES:

The rule is effective August 21, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Liam McMenamin at (202) 482-2233, or [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

The Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) Regulations implement priorities and allocations authority of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended. Through the regulations, certain national defense and energy programs may be supported through the prioritization of contracts, or the allocation of resources. The priorities authority applies to the prioritization of contracts to support an approved national defense and/or energy program. Once a program is approved, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) (or another agency to which BIS has delegated authority) may place priority ratings on certain contracts. These ratings effectively expedite contractual performance to support the approved program.

The Department of Defense (DOD) has entered into bilateral security of supply arrangements with certain countries that allow DOD to request priority delivery of DOD contracts, subcontracts or orders from companies in those countries. Persons in the United States who need assistance in obtaining priority delivery for such a contract, subcontract or order in those countries may request DOD to provide assistance in obtaining priority delivery. The DPAS Regulations list the countries with which DOD has entered into such arrangements to provide readers whose need for contract prioritization may extend beyond the United States with information about how to seek such prioritizations. Recently, DOD entered into a bilateral security of supply arrangement with Spain. Accordingly, this rule adds Spain to the list of countries with which DOD has such arrangements. The list is informational only and does not affect any right, duty or prohibition that applies to any person under the DPAS Regulations. DOD would be able to request priority delivery in countries with which it has security of supply arrangements and persons in the United States would be able to request assistance from DOD in obtaining priority delivery even if the list did not appear in the DPAS Regulations.

With the addition of Spain, the list will read: Australia, Finland, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Rulemaking Requirements

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). This rule does not impose any regulatory burden on the public and is consistent with the goals of Executive Order 13563. This rule has been determined not to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number. This rule does not involve a collection of information that is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

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

4. BIS finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public comment because it is unnecessary. This rule merely updates the list of countries with which the DOD has entered into security of supply arrangements and thus may seek prioritization of contracts in those countries. Persons in the United States who need such prioritization may request DOD assistance to obtain it. The lists are in the DPAS regulations to inform persons whose need for contract prioritization may extend beyond the United States of where they may be able to obtain assistance. DOD may seek such prioritization and persons in the United States may request DOD assistance regardless whether or not the countries with which DOD has entered into security of supply arrangements are identified in the DPAS Regulations. Listing these countries in the DPAS Regulations does not affect any right, duty or prohibition that applies to any person under those regulations. Because these revisions are not substantive changes, it is unnecessary to provide notice and opportunity for public comment. Because neither the Administrative Procedure Act nor any other law requires that notice and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable.

In addition, the 30-day delay in effectiveness otherwise required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is not applicable because this rule is not a substantive rule.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 700

Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry, Government contracts, National defense, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Strategic and critical materials.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Defense Priorities and Allocations System Regulations (15 CFR part 700) are amended as follows:

PART 700—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 700 continues to read as follows: Authority:

50 U.S.C. App. 2061, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 5195, et seq.; 50 U.S.C. App 468; 10 U.S.C. 2538; 50 U.S.C. 82; E.O. 12656, 53 FR 226, 3 CFR, 1988, Comp. 585; E.O. 12742, 56 FR 1079, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp. 309; E.O. 13603, 77 FR 16651, 3 CFR, 2012 Comp., p. 225.

§ 700.57 [Amended]
2. Section 700.57 is amended by adding “Spain” after “The Netherlands,” in: a. The last sentence of paragraph (a); b. The italicized heading of paragraph (c); c. Paragraph (c)(1); and d. The first and second sentences of paragraph (c)(2).
Dated: August 17, 2015. Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-20704 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FDA-2014-C-1552] Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification; Spirulina Extract AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending the color additive regulations to provide for the safe use of spirulina extract as a color additive in coating formulations applied to dietary supplement and drug tablets and capsules. This action is in response to a petition filed by Colorcon, Inc. (Colorcon).

DATES:

This rule is effective September 22, 2015. See section IX for information on the filing of objections. Submit either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing by September 21, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing, identified by Docket No. FDA-2014-C-1552, by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions

Submit electronic objections in the following way:

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

Written Submissions

Submit written objections in the following ways:

• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the Agency name and Docket No. FDA-2014-C-1552 for this rulemaking. All objections received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting objections, see the “Objections” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or objections received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Molly A. Harry, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 240-402-1075.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

In a notice published in the Federal Register of October 22, 2014 (79 FR 63062), we announced that we had filed a color additive petition (CAP 4C0300), submitted by Colorcon, Inc. (petitioner), 275 Ruth Rd., Harleysville, PA 19438. The petition proposed to amend the color additive regulations in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 73 Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification to provide for the safe use of spirulina extract, prepared by the filtered aqueous extraction of the dried biomass of Arthrospira platensis (A. platensis), as a color additive in coating formulations applied to dietary supplement and drug tablets and capsules.

II. Background

In the Federal Register of August 13, 2013 (78 FR 49117), we issued a final rule in response to a color additive petition (CAP 2C0293) approving the use of a filtered aqueous extract of the dried biomass of A. platensis as a color additive in candy and chewing gum at levels consistent with good manufacturing practice (GMP). We established spirulina extract as the common or usual name for the color additive and listed it in § 73.530 (21 CFR 73.530). In addition to the identity of the color additive, the regulation in § 73.530 includes specifications that must be met for lead, arsenic, mercury, and microcystin toxin.

In the Federal Register of April 11, 2014 (79 FR 20095), we issued a final rule in response to a color additive petition (CAP 2C0297) amending § 73.530 to include the use of spirulina extract as a color additive in confections (including candy and chewing gum), frostings, ice cream and frozen desserts, dessert coatings and toppings, beverage mixes and powders, yogurts, custards, puddings, cottage cheese, gelatin, breadcrumbs, and ready-to-eat cereals (excluding extruded cereals), at levels consistent with GMP.

The spirulina extract used for the purposes of CAP 4C0300 is a blue-colored powder produced by the filtered aqueous extraction of the spray-dried biomass of A. platensis (also known as Spirulina platensis), an edible blue-green cyanobacterium. The color additive contains phycocyanins as the principal coloring component. The maximum phycocyanin content of the color additive is 28 percent. Based on data and information provided in the petition on the identity, physical and chemical properties, manufacturing process, and composition of the color additive, we have determined that the color additive meets the specifications for spirulina extract in § 73.530 (Ref. 1).

Spirulina extract is intended to be used as a color additive in film coating formulations applied to dietary supplement and drug tablets and capsules in amounts consistent with GMP. The maximum GMP use level for spirulina extract in an individual coating will be determined by the desired coloring effect. Therefore, because the amount of the color additive used in these coatings is self-limiting, we have determined that there is no need for a specific upper limit on the percent by weight of spirulina extract in coating formulations applied to dietary supplement and drug tablets and capsules (Ref. 1).

III. Safety Evaluation A. Determination of Safety

Under section 721(b)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 379e(b)(4)), a color additive may not be listed for a particular use unless the data and information available to FDA establish that the color additive is safe for that use. Our color additive regulations at 21 CFR 70.3(i) define “safe” to mean that there is convincing evidence that establishes with reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the intended use of the color additive. To establish with reasonable certainty that a color additive intended for use in food is not harmful under its intended conditions of use, we consider the projected human dietary exposure to the additive, the additive's toxicological data, and other relevant information (such as published literature) available to us. We compare an individual's estimated exposure, or estimated daily intake (EDI), of the additive from all food sources to an acceptable daily intake level established by toxicological data. The EDI is determined by projections based on the amount of the additive proposed for use in particular foods or drugs and on data regarding the amount consumed from all ingested sources of the additive. We commonly use the EDI for the 90th percentile consumer of a color additive as a measure of high chronic exposure.

B. Safety of Petitioned Use of the Color Additive

To support the safety of the petitioned use of spirulina extract as a color additive in coating formulations applied to dietary supplement and drug tablets and capsules, Colorcon submitted an exposure estimate for phycocyanins (the principal coloring component). Colorcon estimated that the petitioned use of spirulina extract in coating formulations applied to dietary supplement and drug tablets and capsules will result in an exposure to phycocyanins of 20.9 milligrams/person/day (mg/p/d) for the 90th percentile consumer (Ref. 2). We agree with Colorcon's exposure estimate for phycocyanins and conclude that it is sufficiently conservative (Ref. 2).1

1 The petition referred to both “drug tablets and capsules” and “pharmaceutical tablets and capsules.” The term “pharmaceutical tablets and capsules” was used regarding the exposure assessment (Ref. 2).

Regarding cumulative exposure (cumulative EDI, or CEDI) to phycocyanins from spirulina and spirulina-derived substances, FDA discussed in the final rule for use of spirulina extract as a color additive in candy and chewing gum that spirulina and spirulina-derived substances have been the subject of four notices submitted by firms to FDA informing us of their determinations that certain uses of spirulina-derived substances are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) (78 FR 49117 at 49118). One of the GRAS notices (GRN 000424) pertains to the use of a spirulina-derived substance similar in chemical composition to the subject color additive but with a much higher phycocyanin content ranging from 42 to 47 percent, and included use in all foods (except infant formula and foods under U.S. Department of Agriculture's jurisdiction) at levels consistent with GMP. The upper bound CEDI for phycocyanins resulting from the notified uses of spirulina extract was estimated to be 1,140 mg/p/d in GRN 000424 based on conservative assumptions (Ref. 3). This exposure estimate does not appear to include exposure to phycocyanins from use of spirulina extract in dietary supplements. Colorcon estimated that the use of spirulina extract in coating formulations applied to dietary supplement and drug tablets and capsules would increase the previously estimated upper bound CEDI of phycocyanins by 1.8 percent. We agree that Colorcon's estimate is conservative, and that the petitioned use of spirulina extract would not contribute significantly to the previously estimated upper bound CEDI of 1,140 mg/p/d for phycocyanins (Ref. 2).

In support of safety of the use of spirulina extract as a color additive in coating formulations applied to dietary supplement and drug tablets and capsules in the subject petition, Colorcon referenced the safety determinations made by FDA for CAP 2C0293 (78 FR 49117) and CAP 2C0297 (79 FR 20095). The petitioner also conducted a search of the peer-reviewed scientific literature for animal and human oral consumption studies that tested spirulina, spirulina-derived ingredients, and phycocyanins that have been published since 2011. The petitioner submitted the published animal and human studies that they had identified as being relevant to their petition. We reviewed the relevant studies and determined that these publications did not raise any safety concerns.

In our previous evaluations of the use of spirulina extract as a color additive in food, we had selected as the pivotal safety study a 21-month chronic feeding study that tested spirulina powder in rats at dietary concentrations of 10, 20, or 30 percent (equivalent to 5,000, 10,000, or 15,000 milligrams per kilogram bodyweight per day (mg/kg bw/d)). The results of this study showed that prolonged oral consumption of spirulina powder up to a dietary concentration of 15,000 mg/kg bw/d was without adverse effects. Therefore, we concluded that the no-observed-effect level (NOEL) for spirulina is 15,000 mg/kg bw/d (900,000 mg/p/d for a 60 kg person) based on the absence of treatment-related adverse effects at the highest concentration tested in this study. We had also determined the NOEL for phycocyanins for humans to be between 108,000 and 184,500 mg/p/d (78 FR 49117 at 49119). Taking into account all the available safety information, the estimated exposure to phycocyanins from the petitioned use of the spirulina extract, and the margin of safety between the CEDI for phycocyanin (1,140 mg/p/d) and the NOEL for phycocyanin (108,000 to 184,500 mg/p/d), we conclude that the petitioned use of spirulina extract as a color additive in coating formulations applied to dietary supplement and drug tablets and capsules is safe (Ref. 4).

The potential allergenicity of spirulina phycocyanins was discussed in the final rule for the use of spirulina extract as a color additive in candy and chewing gum (78 FR 49117 at 49119). Based on our review of a comparison of the known amino acid sequences of phycocyanins with the sequences of known protein allergens, we had determined that there is a low probability that phycocyanins are protein allergens. We therefore concluded that the spirulina phycocyanins present an insignificant allergy risk to consumers of the color additive. We are not aware of any new information that would cause us to change this conclusion.

IV. Conclusion

Based on the data and information in the petition and other relevant material, we conclude that the petitioned use of spirulina extract in coating formulations applied to dietary supplement and drug tablets and capsules is safe. We further conclude that the additive will achieve its intended technical effect and is suitable for the petitioned use. Consequently, we are amending the color additive regulations in part 73 as set forth in this document. In addition, based upon the factors listed in 21 CFR 71.20(b), we conclude that certification of spirulina extract is not necessary for the protection of the public health.

V. Public Disclosure

In accordance with § 71.15 (21 CFR 71.15), the petition and the documents that we considered and relied upon in reaching our decision to approve the petition will be made available for public disclosure (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). As provided in § 71.15, we will delete from the documents any materials that are not available for public disclosure.

VI. Environmental Impact

We previously considered the environmental effects of this rule, as stated in the October 22, 2014, notice of filing for CAP 4C0300. We stated that we had determined, under 21 CFR 25.32(r), that this action “is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment” such that neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. We have not received any new information or comments that would affect our previous determination.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

This final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

VIII. Section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act

Our review of this petition was limited to section 721 of the FD&C Act. This final rule is not a statement regarding compliance with other sections of the FD&C Act. For example, section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(ll) prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food that contains a drug approved under section 505 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355), a biological product licensed under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), or a drug or biological product for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and their existence has been made public, unless one of the exemptions in section 301(ll)(1) to (4) of the FD&C Act applies. In our review of this petition, we did not consider whether section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act or any of its exemptions apply to food containing this color additive. Accordingly, this final rule should not be construed to be a statement that a food containing this color additive, if introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, would not violate section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act. Furthermore, this language is included in all color additive final rules that pertain to food and therefore should not be construed to be a statement of the likelihood that section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act applies.

IX. Objections

This rule is effective as shown in the DATES section except as to any provisions that may be stayed by the filing of proper objections. If you will be adversely affected by one or more provisions of this regulation, you may file with the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written objections. You must separately number each objection, and within each numbered objection you must specify with particularity the provision(s) of the regulation to which you object, and the grounds for your objection. Within each numbered objection, you must specifically state whether you are requesting a hearing on the particular provision that you specify in that numbered objection. If you do not request a hearing for any particular objection, you waive the right to a hearing on that objection. If you request a hearing, your objection must include a detailed description and analysis of the specific factual information you intend to present in support of the objection in the event that a hearing is held. If you do not include such a description and analysis for any particular objection, you waive the right to a hearing on the objection.

It is only necessary to send one set of documents. Identify documents with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Any objections received in response to the regulation 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. We will publish notice of the objections that we have received or lack thereof in the Federal Register.

X. 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 address in this reference section, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web site after this document publishes in the Federal Register).

1. Memorandum from N. Belai, Color Technology Team, OCAC, CFSAN, FDA to M. Harry, Division of Petition Review, OFAS, CFSAN, FDA, March 19, 2015. 2. Memorandum from H. Lee, Division of Petition Review, OFAS, CFSAN, FDA to M. Harry, Division of Petition Review, OFAS, CFSAN, FDA, January 30, 2015. 3. Letter from D. Keefe, Office of Food Additive Safety, CFSAN, FDA to H. Newman, Desert Lake Technologies, LLC, Agency Response Letter GRAS Notice 000424, December 6, 2012, (http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/NoticeInventory/ucm335743.htm). 4. Memorandum from T. Walker, Division of Petition Review, OFAS, CFSAN, FDA to M. Harry, Division of Petition Review, OFAS, CFSAN, FDA, April 2, 2015. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 73

Color additives, Cosmetics, Drugs, Medical devices.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and re-delegated to the Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 21 CFR part 73 is amended as follows:

PART 73—LISTING OF COLOR ADDITIVES EXEMPT FROM CERTIFICATION 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 343, 348, 351, 352, 355, 361, 362, 371, 379e.

2. Section 73.530 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 73.530 Spirulina extract.

(c) Uses and restrictions. Spirulina extract may be safely used for coloring confections (including candy and chewing gum), frostings, ice cream and frozen desserts, dessert coatings and toppings, beverage mixes and powders, yogurts, custards, puddings, cottage cheese, gelatin, breadcrumbs, ready-to-eat cereals (excluding extruded cereals), and coating formulations applied to dietary supplement tablets and capsules, at levels consistent with good manufacturing practice, except that it may not be used to color foods for which standards of identity have been issued under section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, unless the use of the added color is authorized by such standards.

3. Section 73.1530 is added to subpart B to read as follows:
§ 73.1530 Spirulina extract.

(a) Identity. (1) The color additive spirulina extract is prepared by the filtered aqueous extraction of the dried biomass of Arthrospira platensis. The color additive contains phycocyanins as the principal coloring components.

(2) Color additive mixtures for drug use made with spirulina extract may contain only those diluents that are suitable and are listed in this subpart as safe for use in color additive mixtures for coloring ingested drugs.

(b) Specifications. Spirulina extract must conform to the following specifications and must be free from impurities, other than those named, to the extent that such other impurities may be avoided by good manufacturing practice:

(1) Lead, not more than 2 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) (2 parts per million (ppm));

(2) Arsenic, not more than 2 mg/kg (2 ppm);

(3) Mercury, not more than 1 mg/kg (1 ppm); and

(4) Negative for microcystin toxin.

(c) Uses and restrictions. Spirulina extract may be safely used for coloring coating formulations applied to drug tablets and capsules, at levels consistent with good manufacturing practice.

(d) Labeling requirements. The label of the color additive and any mixture prepared therefrom intended solely or in part for coloring purposes shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.

(e) Exemption from certification. Certification of this color additive is not necessary for the protection of the public health, and therefore batches thereof are exempt from the certification requirements of section 721(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Dated: August 14, 2015. Susan Bernard, Director, Office of Regulations, Policy and Social Sciences, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 2015-20676 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0216] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Suncoast Super Boat Grand Prix; Gulf of Mexico, Sarasota, FL AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is amending a special local regulation for the Suncoast Super Boat Grand Prix that occurs on the waters of the Gulf of Mexico near Sarasota, Florida. The event is scheduled to take place annually on the first Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of July from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. The amendment is needed in order to protect the safety of race participants, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public on the navigable waters of the United States. The amended special local regulation will restrict vessel traffic on the waters near the event by establishing the following three areas: A race area, where all persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in the high speed boat races, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within; a spectator area, where all vessels must be anchored or operate at No Wake Speed; and an enforcement area where designated representatives may control vessel traffic as determined by prevailing conditions.

DATES:

This rule is effective September 21, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-0216. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Brett S. Sillman, Sector St. Petersburg Prevention Department, Coast Guard; telephone (813) 228-2191, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

The Coast Guard is proposing to amend the Special Local Regulation on the waters of the Gulf of Mexico in the vicinity of Sarasota, Florida during the Suncoast Super Boat Grand Prix. The event is scheduled to take place the first Friday, Saturday, and Sunday in July from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. This final rule is necessary to protect the safety of race participants, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public on the navigable waters of the United States during the event.

B. Basis and Purpose

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

The purpose of the proposed rule is to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the Suncoast Super Boat Grand Prix.

C. Comments, Changes, and the Final Rule

There were no comments related to this event during the comment period and there was no request for a public meeting made during the comment period.

This special local regulation will be enforced annually during the first Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of July from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. The special local regulations will establish the following three areas: (1) A race area, where all persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in the high speed boat races, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within; (2) a spectator area, where all vessels must be anchored or operate at No Wake Speed; and (3) an enforcement area where designated representatives may control vessel traffic as determined by the prevailing conditions.

Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area or enforcement area by contacting the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by telephone at (727) 824-7506, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area or enforcement area is granted by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

The economic impact of this final rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The special local regulations will be enforced for only seven hours a day for three days; (2) although persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the race area or enforcement area without authorization from the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area and enforcement area if authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard would provide advance notification of the special local regulations to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners and/or on-scene designate representatives.

2. Impact on Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

This rule 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping 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 § 100.720 to read as follows:
§ 100.720 Special Local Regulations; Suncoast Super Boat Grand Prix, Gulf of Mexico; Sarasota, FL.

(a) Regulated areas. The following regulated areas are established as special local regulations. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

(1) Race area. All waters of the Gulf of Mexico contained within the following points: 27°18.19′ N., 82°34.29′ W., thence to position 27°17.42′ N., 82°35.00′ W., thence to position 27°18.61′ N., 82°36.59′ W., thence to position 27°19.58′ N., 82°35.54′ W., thence back to the original position 27°18.19′ N., 82°34.29′ W.

(2) Spectator area. All waters of Gulf of Mexico no less than 500 yards from the race area and/or as agreed upon by the Coast Guard and race officials.

(3) Enforcement area. All waters of the Gulf of Mexico encompassed within the following points: 27°17.87′ N., 82°33.93′ W., thence to position 27°16.61′ N., 82°34.69′ W., thence to position 27°18.53′ N., 82°37.52′ W., thence to position 27°20.04′ N., 82°35.76′ W., thence back to the original position 27°17.87′ N., 82°33.93′ W.

(b) Definition. The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg in the enforcement of the regulated areas.

(c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the race area unless an authorized race participant.

(2) Designated representatives may control vessel traffic throughout the enforcement area as determined by the prevailing conditions.

(3) All vessels are to be anchored and/or operate at a No Wake Speed in the spectator area. On-scene designated representatives will direct spectator vessels to the spectator area.

(4) All vessel traffic not involved with the event shall enter and exit Sarasota Bay via Big Sarasota Pass and stay well clear of the enforcement area.

(5) New Pass will be closed to all inbound and outbound vessel traffic at the COLREGS Demarcation Line. Vessels are allowed to utilize New Pass to access all areas inland of the Demarcation Line via Sarasota Bay. New Pass may be opened at the discretion of the Captain of the Port.

(6) Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated areas by contacting the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by telephone at (727) 824-7506, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization is granted by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.

(d) Enforcement date. This section will be enforced annually the first Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of July from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. EDT daily.

Dated: June 15, 2015. G.D. Case, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port St. Petersburg.
[FR Doc. 2015-20741 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0767] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hood Canal, Port Gamble, WA 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 Hood Canal Floating Drawbridge across Hood Canal (Admiralty Inlet), mile 5.0, near Port Gamble, WA. This deviation allows the bridge to open the draw span half-way, 300 feet; as opposed to all the way, which is 600 feet. One half of the span will remain closed, allowing for the replacements of bridge anchors for this section of the bridge.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on August 27, 2015, until 7 p.m. on September 30, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0767] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has requested that the Hood Canal Floating Drawbridge only open half of the span to facilitate safe and uninterrupted bridge anchor replacements. The Hood Canal Floating Drawbridge crosses Hood Canal, mile 5.0, near Port Gamble, WA. The bridge has two fixed spans (East and West), and one draw span (Main). The East span provides 50 feet of vertical clearance, and the West span provides 35 feet of vertical clearance. The Main span provides zero feet of vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position, and unlimited vertical clearance in the open-to-navigation position. Vertical clearances are referenced to mean high-water elevation.

The deviation period allows the draw span of the Hood Canal Floating Drawbridge across Hood Canal, mile 5.0, to open half-way from 6 a.m. on August 27, 2015 until 7 p.m. on September 30, 2015.

During the time of the deviation, the drawbridge will not be able to operate according to the normal operating schedule. The normal operating schedule for the bridge is in accordance with 33 CFR 117.1045, which allows, with at least one hour's notice, on signal, for the draw to open horizontally for 300 feet unless the maximum opening of 600 feet is requested; and need not open for vessel traffic from 3 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. daily from 3 p.m. on May 22 to 6:16 p.m. on September 30. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.1045 at all other times. Waterway usage on this part of Hood Canal includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to U.S. Navy vessels, and vessels attending the missions of the U.S. Navy to small pleasure craft.

Vessels able to pass through the East and West spans may do so at anytime. The Main span does not provide passage in the closed-to-navigation position. The bridge will be able to open half the Main span for Navy vessels during emergencies, when requested by the Department of the Navy. The Hood Canal Floating Drawbridge has two immediate alternate spans for vessels to pass (East span and West span). The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the 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 11, 2015. Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-20671 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0351] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lewis and Clark River, Astoria, OR AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Oregon State (Lewis and Clark River) Highway Bridge across the Lewis and Clark River, mile 1.0, at Astoria, OR. The deviation is necessary to accommodate bridge maintenance activities. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position and need not open to maritime traffic.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on August 20, 2015 to 5 p.m. on October 30, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0351] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Steven M. Fischer, Thirteenth Coast Guard District Bridge Program Administrator, telephone 206-220-7282, email d13-pf-d13bridgesuscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has requested that the Lewis and Clark River Bridge, mile 1.0, remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and need not open to vessel traffic Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday. The bascule span will be available to open on Thursdays from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., when given 3 hours advanced notice. The bridge will operate as normal on Sundays. The deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge maintenance activities to include repairing and preserving the bascule drawbridge structural steel. The Lewis and Clark Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 17.3 feet above mean high water when in the closed-to-navigation position. The normal operating schedule of the Oregon State highway bridge can be found in 33 CFR 117.899(c). This deviation period is from 7 a.m. on August 20, 2015 to 5 p.m. on October 30, 2015. The deviation allows the bascule span of the Lewis and Clark River Bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday throughout the deviation period. In addition, the span will be in the closed-to-navigation position on Thursdays, but available to open from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. when given 3 hours advanced notice. The bridge will operate as normal on Sundays in accordance with 33 CFR 117.899(c). Waterway usage on the Lewis and Clark River is primarily small recreational boaters and fishing vessels transiting to and from Astoria Marine Construction Company.

The bascule span of the bridge will have a containment system installed which will reduce the vertical clearance by 5 feet from 17.3 feet above mean high water to 12.3 feet above mean high water. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for any emergency if a three-hour notice is given from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Saturday; on Sundays the bridge will be able to open in accordance with 33 CFR 117.899(c), and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the 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 17, 2015. Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-20670 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0718] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Cleveland National Air Show; Lake Erie and Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, OH AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Erie and Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie and Cleveland Harbor during the Cleveland National Air Show. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect participants, spectators, and vessels from the hazards associated with aerial insertions and aircraft maneuvers.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 2:20 p.m. on September 3, 2015 until 6 p.m. on September 7, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0718]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email 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 and contrary to the public interest. 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 and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display.

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.

The Cleveland National Air Show has been taking place annually since 1964. During the 2015 show, as with shows in the past, there will be various high speed aerial and military tactical demonstrations on and over Burke Lakefront to include various maneuvers by U. S. Air Force Thunderbirds and civilian aircraft and by personnel on the Burke Lakefront Airport grounds. Specifically, this year's aerial and military tactical demonstrations will take place between 2:20 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on September 3, 2015, 10:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on September 4, 2015, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on September 5, 2015 through September 7, 2015. A heavy amount of recreational boating traffic is expected for these demonstrations. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that the maneuvers combined with a high concentration of recreational vessels will create significant risks for the boating public.

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 the boating public during the Cleveland National Air Show. This zone will be enforced from 2:20 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. on September 3, 2015, from 10 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on September 4, 2015, from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. on September 5, 2015, from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. on September 6, 2015, and from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. on September 7, 2015. This zone will encompass a portion of Lake Erie and Cleveland Harbor; Cleveland, OH starting at position 41°30′20″ N. and 081°42′20″ W. to 41°30′50″ N. and 081°42′49″ W., then to 41°32′09″ N. and 081°39′49″ W., then to 41°31′53″N. and 081°39′24″ W., then return 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 Lake Erie and Cleveland Harbor from 2:20 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on September 3, 2015, 10:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on September 4, 2015, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on September 5, 2015 through September 7, 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 approximately ten hours each day in an area with low commercial vessel traffic. 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 record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 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.T09-0718 to read as follows:
§ 165.T09-0718 Safety Zone; Cleveland National Air Show; Lake Erie and Cleveland Harbor, Cleveland, OH.

(a) Location. This zone will encompass a portion of Lake Erie and Cleveland Harbor; Cleveland, OH starting at position 41°30′20″ N. and 081°42′20″ W. to 41°30′50″ N. and 081°42′49″ W., then to 41°32′09″ N. and 081°39′49″ W., then to 41°31′53″N. and 081°39′24″ W., then return to the point of origin (NAD 83).

(b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced from 2:20 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. on September 3, 2015, from 10 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on September 4, 2015, from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. on September 5, 2015, from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. on September 6, 2015, and from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. on September 7, 2015.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port 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. 2015-20739 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0276] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone, Swim Around Charleston; Charleston, SC AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary moving safety zone during the Swim Around Charleston, a swimming race occurring on waters of the Wando River, the Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, and the Ashley River, in Charleston, South Carolina. The Swim Around Charleston is scheduled to take place on September 26, 2015. The temporary safety zone is necessary for the safety of the swimmers, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public during the event. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective from noon until 6 p.m. on September 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-0276. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Chief Warrant Officer Christopher Ruleman, Sector Charleston Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202)-366-9826.

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

On May 26, 2015, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; Swim Around Charleston, Charleston, SC in the Federal Register (80 FR 30005). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

B. Basis and Purpose

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 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.

The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safety of the swimmers, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public during the Swim Around Charleston.

C. Discussion of Comments and This Temporary Final Rule

The Coast Guard did not receive any comments to the proposed rule, and no changes were made to the regulatory text.

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. The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will only be enforced for a total of six hours; (2) the safety zone will move with the participant vessels so that once the swimmers clear a portion of the waterway, the safety zone will no longer be enforced in that portion of the waterway; (3) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (4) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; and (5) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

2. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received zero comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. 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 would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Wando River, the Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, or the Ashley River in Charleston, South Carolina from noon until 6 p.m. on September 26, 2015. Due to the limited duration and geographical scope of this rule, it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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 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 a safety zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination was completed for 2015. The environmental analysis checklist and 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. 1226, 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.

2. Add § 165.T07-0276 to read as follows:
§ 165.T07-0276 Safety Zone, Swim Around Charleston; Charleston, SC.

(a) Regulated area. The following regulated area is a moving safety zone: all waters within a 75-yard radius around Swim Around Charleston participant vessels that are officially associated with the swim. The Swim Around Charleston swimming race consists of a 10-mile course that starts at Remley's Point on the Wando River in approximate position 32°48′49″ N., 79°54′27″ W., crosses the main shipping channel of Charleston Harbor, and finishes at the General William B. Westmoreland Bridge on the Ashley River in approximate position 32°50′14″ N., 80°01′23″ W. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

(b) Definition. The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated area.

(c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

(d) Effective date. This rule is effective on September 26, 2015 and will be enforced from noon until 6 p.m.

Dated: August 3, 2015. G. L. Tomasulo, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2015-20737 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Parts 200 and 300 RIN 1810-AB16 [Docket ID ED-2012-OESE-0018] Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities AGENCY:

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.

ACTION:

Final regulations.

SUMMARY:

The Secretary amends the regulations governing title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) (the “Title I regulations”), to no longer authorize a State to define modified academic achievement standards and develop alternate assessments based on those modified academic achievement standards for eligible students with disabilities. In order to make conforming changes to ensure coordinated administration of programs under title I of the ESEA and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Secretary is also amending the regulations for Part B of the IDEA. Note: Nothing in these regulations changes the ability of States to develop and administer alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities or alternate assessments based on grade-level academic achievement standards for other eligible students with disabilities in accordance with the ESEA and the IDEA, or changes the authority of IEP teams to select among these alternate assessments for eligible students.

DATES:

These regulations are effective September 21, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information regarding the Title I regulations, contact Monique M. Chism, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W224, Washington, DC 20202-6132. Telephone: (202) 260-0826.

For further information regarding the IDEA regulations, contact Mary Louise Dirrigl, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th St. SW., Potomac Center Plaza, Room 5156, Washington, DC 20202-2641. Telephone: (202) 245-7324.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

High standards and high expectations for all students and an accountability system that provides teachers, parents, students, and the public with information about students' academic progress are essential to ensure that students graduate from high school prepared for college and careers in the 21st century. In 2007, the Department amended the Title I regulations to permit States to define modified academic achievement standards for eligible students with disabilities and to assess those students with alternate assessments based on those modified academic achievement standards. The Department promulgated those regulations based on the understanding that (1) there was a small group of students whose disabilities precluded them from achieving grade-level proficiency and whose progress was such that they would not reach grade-level achievement standards in the same time frame as other students, and (2) the regular State assessment would be too difficult for this group of students and the assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards would be too easy for them. 72 FR 17748 (Apr. 9, 2007). In addition, at that time, the Department acknowledged that measuring the academic achievement of students with disabilities, particularly those eligible to be assessed based on modified academic achievement standards, was “an area in which there is much to learn and improve” and indicated that “[a]s data and research on assessments for students with disabilities improve, the Department may decide to issue additional regulations or guidance.” 72 FR 17748, 17763 (Apr. 9, 2007).

Since these regulations went into effect, additional research 1 has demonstrated that students with disabilities who struggle in reading and mathematics can successfully learn grade-level content and make significant academic progress when appropriate instruction, services, and supports are provided. For example, a research study conducted a meta-analysis of 70 independent studies investigating the effects of special education interventions on student achievement. The study found that children with disabilities made significant progress across different content areas and across different educational settings when they received systematic, explicit instruction; learning strategy instruction; and other evidence-based instructional strategies and supports.2

1 See discussion of this research in Assessing Students with Disabilities Based on a State's Academic Achievement Standards.

2 See Scruggs, T., Mastropieri, M., Berkeley, S., & Graetz, J. (2010). Do Special Education Interventions Improve Learning of Secondary Content? A Meta-Analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31(6), 437-449.

In addition, nearly all States have developed new college- and career-ready standards and new assessments aligned with those standards. These new assessments have been designed to facilitate the valid, reliable, and fair assessment of most students, including students with disabilities who previously took an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards. For these reasons, we believe that the removal of the authority for States to define modified academic achievement standards and to administer assessments based on those standards is necessary to ensure that students with disabilities are held to the same high standards as their nondisabled peers, and that they benefit from high expectations, access to the general education curriculum based on a State's academic content standards, and instruction that will prepare them for success in college and careers.

Public Comment: On August 23, 2013, we published in the Federal Register (78 FR 52467) a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would amend the Title I regulations to no longer authorize a State to define modified academic achievement standards and administer alternate assessments based on those modified academic achievement standards for eligible children with disabilities. The NPRM established an October 7, 2013, deadline for the submission of written comments. Although the Federal eRulemaking Portal was in operation during the government shutdown in October 2013, which included the final seven days of the original public comment period, we recognized that interested parties reasonably may have believed that the government shutdown resulted in a suspension of the public comment period. To ensure that all interested parties were provided the opportunity to submit comments, we reopened the public comment period for seven days. The final due date for comments was November 23, 2013.

In response to our invitation in the NPRM, 156 parties submitted comments. We group major issues according to subject. In some cases, comments addressed issues beyond the scope of the proposed regulations. Although we appreciate commenters' concerns for broader issues affecting the education of students with disabilities, because those comments are beyond the scope of this regulatory action, we do not discuss them here. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor revisions.

Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and changes in the regulations since publication of the NPRM follows.

General Comments

Comments: Several commenters stated that general assessments that are accessible for all students are in the best interest of students with disabilities and provide better information about the achievement of those students for parents, educators, and the public. Several commenters pointed to developments in the field of assessment that are contributing to general assessments that are accessible for the vast majority of students. The commenters noted that using principles of “universal design for learning” and considering accessibility issues when designing assessments have resulted in more accessible general assessments and have eliminated the need for alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards. A few commenters urged the Department to promote the use of universal design for learning in developing assessments, as well as to support the development of accessible assessments and accommodations for students with disabilities.

Discussion: Nearly all States have developed and are administering new high-quality general assessments that are valid and reliable and measure students with disabilities' knowledge and skills against college- and career-ready standards. Including students with disabilities in more accessible general assessments aligned to college- and career-ready standards promotes high expectations for students with disabilities, ensures that they will have access to grade-level content, and supports high-quality instruction designed to enable students with disabilities to be involved in, and make progress in, the general education curriculum—that is, the same curriculum as for nondisabled students.

In response to those commenters who urged the Department to support the adoption of universal design principles for student assessments, we note that the Department has a history of supporting and promoting universal design for learning, assessments that are accessible for all students, and appropriate accommodations for students with disabilities. Most recently, we included “universal design for learning” in defining “high-quality assessments” required under the Race to the Top programs and the ESEA flexibility initiative.3 We have also focused funding on improving the accessibility of assessments through the General Supervision Enhancement Grants (GSEG) and Enhanced Assessment Grants (EAG) programs.

3 ESEA flexibility refers to the Department's initiative to give a State flexibility regarding specific requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 in exchange for developing a rigorous and comprehensive plan designed to improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, increase equity, and improve the quality of instruction.

Changes: None.

Comments: Some commenters from States that administered alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards discussed how these assessments were helpful in meeting the needs of students with disabilities. One commenter stated that the assessments improved instruction and student achievement while providing students with access to the general curriculum. A representative from a State educational agency (SEA) commented that five years of research and development went into developing their State's alternate assessments, which are based on grade-level content, are aligned with college- and career-ready standards, and do not compromise academic rigor and expectations. The SEA representative stated that the existing regulations provide the most flexibility for States and that, without access to the State's alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards, students who would otherwise take the alternate assessments would no longer have the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and skills.

Discussion: We recognize that some States expended considerable resources to develop alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards. As one commenter suggests, these States' research and development efforts generated valuable information on how best to teach and assess students with disabilities. States may still use this information to prepare and support students to take the new general assessments aligned with college- and career-ready standards that States have developed since the Department issued the regulations in April 2007. Those assessments are more accessible to students with disabilities than those in place at the time States began developing alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards. The new general assessments will facilitate the valid, reliable, and fair assessment of most students with disabilities, including those for whom alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards were intended. Moreover, we know the key to successful achievement of students with disabilities begins with appropriate instruction, services, and supports. More than six years of research spurred by the opportunity that States had to research, develop, and administer alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards have dramatically increased the knowledge base about students who are struggling in school. States that received funding from the Department through the GSEG and EAG programs to develop alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards focused on several topics, including the characteristics of students who were participating in such assessments, barriers to these students' learning and performance, and approaches to making assessments more accessible. For example, research in several States found that some students deemed eligible for taking alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards may not have had an opportunity to learn grade-level content, and that more effort was needed to support teachers in ensuring students have meaningful opportunities to learn grade-level content. Other research focused on the appropriateness of test items and identified various ways to improve the accessibility of test items, such as adjusting format characteristics or content, or carefully examining the difficulty of the test items and making items more accessible and understandable (e.g., reducing unimportant or extraneous details) while still measuring grade-level content.4 Therefore, we believe that alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards are no longer needed and, with high-quality instruction and appropriate accommodations, students with disabilities who took an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards will be able to demonstrate their knowledge and skills by participating in the new general assessments.

4 For more information, see: Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., & Bechard, S. (Eds.). (2013). Lessons learned in federally funded projects that can improve the instruction and assessment of low performing students with disabilities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Changes: None.

Comments: A parent whose child participated in an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards expressed concern that, without the assessment, the child would not be able to graduate with a high school diploma. Another commenter asked that States be allowed to continue to administer alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards for State purposes, such as promotion decisions and graduation requirements. One commenter stated that the assessments allowed students with disabilities to be successful and meet State exit exam requirements.

Discussion: Under the final regulations, a State may no longer define modified academic achievement standards and administer alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards to meet ESEA requirements. Accordingly, these regulations do not affect State promotion decisions and graduation requirements because the Federal government does not set promotion or graduation standards for any students, including students with disabilities. Rather, States, and, in some cases, local educational agencies (LEAs), establish requirements for high school graduation and promotion.

However, we note that, regardless of State or local promotion or graduation requirements for a regular high school diploma, in order to ensure a free appropriate public education (FAPE) is made available to students with disabilities under the IDEA, individualized education programs (IEPs), including IEP goals, must be aligned with the State's academic content standards, and contain the content required by the IDEA to enable students with disabilities to be involved in, and make progress in, the general education curriculum based on the State's academic content standards. Therefore, in order to ensure that a State makes FAPE available to all eligible students with disabilities,5 promotion or graduation requirements for such students may not be lowered if doing so means including goals, special education and related services, and supplementary aids and services and other supports in a student's IEP that are not designed to enable the student to be involved in, and make progress in, the general education curriculum based on the State's academic content standards. The general education curriculum is the curriculum that is applicable to all children and is based on the State's academic content standards that apply to all children within the State.

5 The IDEA prescribes certain requirements for IEPs for students who take alternate assessments aligned to alternate academic achievement standards. 34 CFR 300.160(c)(2)(iii), 300.320(a)(2)(ii), and 300.320(a)(6)(ii). This approach addresses the educational and assessment needs of a relatively small percentage of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, estimated at approximately 1% of all students in a State (approximately 10% of students with disabilities), who cannot be held to the same academic achievement standards as students without the most significant cognitive disabilities.

Changes: None.

Comments: Several commenters who expressed support for the proposed regulations noted that they are aligned with the requirements in several current Department programs, such as the requirement that assessments funded under the Race to the Top Assessment (RTTA) program be accessible to all students, including students with disabilities eligible to participate in an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards; the requirement that State recipients of Race to the Top grants phase out alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards; and the requirement that SEAs phase out alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards as a condition of receiving ESEA flexibility.

One commenter who opposed the proposed regulations expressed an understanding that they are based on the premise that States have adopted Common Core State Standards, joined an RTTA consortium, or received waivers under ESEA flexibility. The commenter stated that aligning the proposed regulations with these initiatives would set policy for all States based on those participating in voluntary Department initiatives and would send a message to States not participating in these initiatives that they are disadvantaged for not doing so. Another commenter expressed concern that the proposed regulations would result in permanent regulatory changes predicated on temporary ESEA flexibility waivers.

Discussion: The purpose of the these regulatory changes is to promote high expectations for students with disabilities by encouraging teaching and learning to high academic achievement standards for the grade in which a student is enrolled, measured by a State's general assessments. These regulations are driven by research and advances in the development of general assessments aligned with college- and career-ready standards that are more accessible to students with disabilities than those in place at the time States began developing alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards. The purpose of the regulations is not, as suggested by some commenters, to align them with voluntary Department initiatives. To clarify, State recipients of Race to the Top grants were not required to phase out alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards as a condition of the grants. States approved for ESEA flexibility did agree to phase out those assessments by school year 2014-2015; however, these final regulations are not predicated on that agreement. Rather, the ESEA flexibility requirement is consistent with the purpose of the regulations to promote high expectations for students with disabilities by encouraging teaching and learning to high academic achievement standards for the grade in which a student is enrolled measured by a State's general assessments. Therefore, we disagree with the commenters who claimed that the regulations would set policy based on the Department's voluntary initiatives. Likewise, the regulations do not place any State at a disadvantage as a result of its decision not to participate in voluntary Department initiatives.

Changes: None.

Comments: One commenter expressed concern that the assessments being developed by the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), although based on universal design features to make them more accessible, will not eliminate the need for alternate assessments.

Discussion: The assessments being developed by States based on college- and career-ready standards, including those developed by PARCC and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, do not eliminate the authority or need for States to administer alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. States may also continue to administer alternate assessments based on grade-level academic achievement standards, consistent with 34 CFR 200.6(a)(2)(ii)(A). We note that the Department is supporting, through the GSEG program, the development of alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards that will serve as companion assessments to the general assessments that States are developing and implementing.

Changes: None.

Comments: One commenter questioned the Department's authority to amend the Title I regulations in light of the negotiated rulemaking requirements in section 1901(b) of the ESEA, including the requirement that the rulemaking process be conducted in a timely manner to ensure that final regulations are issued by the Secretary not later than one year after the date of enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Similarly, the commenter questioned whether the proposed regulations meet the requirement in section 1908 of the ESEA that the Secretary issue regulations for sections 1111 and 1116 of the ESEA not later than six months after the date of enactment of NCLB.

Discussion: The statutory requirements for negotiated rulemaking in section 1901(b) of the ESEA apply to title I standards and assessment regulations required to be implemented within one year of enactment of NCLB, not to subsequent regulatory amendments such as those included in these regulations. Similarly, with respect to the timeline for issuing regulations implementing title I, the requirements in sections 1901 and 1908 of the ESEA apply only to the issuance of initial regulations following enactment of NCLB, not to subsequent amendments such as these final regulations.

Changes: None.

Assessing Students With Disabilities Based on a State's Academic Achievement Standards

Comments: We received many comments on the standards to which students with disabilities should be held. Several commenters stated that all students should be held and taught to the same standards and that modified academic achievement standards and alternate assessments based on those standards inappropriately lower expectations for students with disabilities and result in instruction that is less challenging than the instruction provided to their nondisabled peers. Other commenters stated that students with disabilities have the ability to learn grade-level content and can achieve at the same levels as their nondisabled peers when provided with appropriate instruction, services, and supports. One commenter stated that, when students receive instruction based on modified academic achievement standards, a negative cycle begins in which the students never learn what they need to succeed. One commenter stated that a State's standards and assessments should be designed to be appropriate for the vast majority of students with disabilities, with the exception of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Other commenters stated that a large number of students with disabilities taking alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards creates a separate education system for students with disabilities and focuses on students' limitations, rather than strengths.

On the other hand, some commenters stated that holding students with disabilities to the same standards as nondisabled students is unfair because students who qualify for special education services have a disability that affects their academic functioning. They noted that what may be a high standard for one student may not necessarily be the same for another student, and that students with disabilities should take assessments that reflect realistic expectations for them.

Discussion: The importance of holding all students, including students with disabilities, to high standards cannot be over-emphasized. Low expectations can lead to students with disabilities receiving less challenging instruction that reflects below grade-level achievement standards, and thereby not learning what they need to succeed at the grade in which they are enrolled.

Although the Department agrees that some students may have a disability that affects their academic functioning, we disagree that students with disabilities, except for those with the most significant cognitive disabilities, should be held to different academic achievement standards than their nondisabled peers. Research demonstrates that low-achieving students with disabilities who struggle in reading 6 and low-achieving students with disabilities who struggle in mathematics 7 can successfully learn grade-level content when they have access to high-quality instruction. The inclusion of students with disabilities in the new, more accessible general assessments will promote high expectations for students with disabilities, which research demonstrates is associated with improved educational outcomes.8 Therefore, we disagree with commenters' statements that it is unfair to hold students with disabilities, other than those with the most significant cognitive disabilities, to the same academic achievement standards as their nondisabled peers.

6 For example, see: Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G., Roberts, J. K., Cheatham, J.P., & Champlin, T. M. (2010). Comprehensive reading instruction for students with intellectual disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 445-466; Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Wills, H., Veerkamp, M., & Kaufman, J. (2008); Mautone, J. A., DuPaul, G. J., Jitendra, A. K., Tresco, K. E., Junod, R. V., & Volpe, R. J. (2009). The relationship between treatment integrity and acceptability of reading interventions for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 919-931; and Scammacca, N., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Wanzek, J., & Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Extensive reading interventions in grades K-3: From research to practice. Portsmouth, N.H.: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction; and Vaughn, S., Denton, C. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (2010). Why intensive interventions are necessary for students with severe reading difficulties. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 32-444; Wanzek, J. & Vaughn, S. (2010). Tier 3 interventions for students with significant reading problems. Theory Into Practice, 49, 305-314.

7 For example, see: Fuchs, L. S. & Fuchs, D., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher, J. M. (2008). Intensive intervention for students with mathematics disabilities: Seven principles of effective practice. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 31, 79-92; and Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. R., & Witzel, B. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009-4060). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved November 1, 2010 from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/.

8 For example, see Archamboult, I., Janosz, M., & Chouindard, R. (2012). Teacher beliefs as predictors of adolescent cognitive engagement and achievement in mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research, 105, 319-328; Hinnant, J., O'Brien, M., & Ghazarian, S. (2009). The longitudinal relations of teacher expectations to achievement in the early school years. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 662-670; and Hornstra, L., Denessen, E., Bakker, J., von den Bergh, L., & Voeten, M. (2010). Teacher attitudes toward dyslexia: Effects on teacher expectations and the academic achievement of students with dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(6), 515-529.

Changes: None.

Comments: Many commenters, mostly teachers and parents, stated that modified academic achievement standards and assessments based on those standards meet the needs of certain students with disabilities for whom the general assessment is too difficult. The commenters stated that the general assessment does not provide meaningful data on these students and that alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards allow students to demonstrate their knowledge, show progress, and experience success.

Several commenters expressed concern about providing assessments to students when they know the students will struggle to complete the general assessment because, without more supports, it would be too challenging for the students. The commenters expressed concern that this experience would affect their self-esteem and result in higher drop-out rates for students with disabilities.

Discussion: Since the regulations permitting States to define modified academic achievement standards and develop alternate assessments based on those standards were promulgated in 2007, there has been significant research and progress in developing assessments that are appropriate and accessible for most students, including students with disabilities for whom alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards were intended. As discussed in the NPRM, the application of universal design principles, new technologies, and new research on accommodations has led to the development of general assessments that are not only more accessible to students with disabilities, but also improve the validity of their scores. As a number of commenters noted, the developers of the new generation of assessments considered the needs of students with disabilities to ensure that the assessments are designed to allow those students to demonstrate their knowledge.9

9 For additional information on assessment accommodations, see: PARCC Accessibility Features and Accommodations Manual (Nov. 2014) at http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/parcc-accessibility-features-accommodations-manual-11-14_final.pdf.

The Department shares the goal that students with disabilities experience success. Removing the authority for modified academic achievement standards and an alternate assessment based on those standards furthers this goal because students with disabilities who are assessed based on grade-level academic achievement standards will receive instruction aligned with such an assessment.

Changes: None.

Comments: Some commenters stated that it is unfair for students with disabilities to have modifications in instruction during the school year and then be assessed with a test that is not modified.

Discussion: For purposes of this response, we assume “modifications in instruction” means accommodations authorized under the IDEA. While the IDEA does authorize adaptations in the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction (34 CFR 300.39(b)(3)), it also requires appropriate accommodations during testing (34 CFR 300.160(a) and 300.320(a)(6)(i)). These accommodations, as agreed upon by a child's IEP team, which includes the child's parents along with school officials, may include, among other things, small group testing, frequent breaks, a separate or alternate location, a specified area or seating, and adaptive and specialized equipment or furniture. As permitted under the IDEA and determined appropriate by a student's IEP team, the Department believes that students with disabilities who take a general assessment based on a State's challenging academic achievement standards should be provided with accommodations during the assessment that are similar to the IEP accommodations they receive for instructional purposes and for other academic tests or assessments so that the students can be involved in, and make progress in, the general education curriculum. These regulations will not prevent the provision of needed supports to students with disabilities during general assessments or for other instructional purposes.

Changes: None.

Comments: One commenter expressed support for the proposed regulations, stating that alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards do not take into account a student's disability and the content of the instruction he or she is provided, and do not provide meaningful information to school districts or accurately measure the student's progress. However, the commenter maintained that the new general assessments, although more accessible, may be too difficult for students who currently participate in an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards. Instead, the commenter recommended allowing States to base participation in the general assessment on a student's instructional level, rather than chronological age, with a cap of counting no more than two percent of proficient scores for ESEA accountability purposes.

Discussion: The commenter's recommendation to allow States to base participation in the general assessment on a student's instructional level is often referred to as “out-of-level” or “off-grade level” testing and generally refers to the practice of assessing a student enrolled in one grade using a measure that was developed for students in a lower grade. By definition, an out-of-level assessment cannot meet the requirements of a grade-level assessment because it does not measure mastery of grade-level content or academic achievement standards. In addition, out-of-level testing is often associated with lower expectations for students with disabilities, tracking such students into lower-level curricula with limited opportunities to succeed in the general education curriculum.

The Department disagrees with the commenter's statement that the new general assessments may be too difficult for students who currently participate in an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards. We learned through States that received funding from the Department through the GSEG and EAG programs that some students with disabilities who might be candidates for an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards may not have had an opportunity to learn grade-level content, and more effort was needed to support teachers in ensuring students have meaningful opportunities to learn grade-level content. Six of the projects found that students who might be candidates for an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards had difficulty using printed materials in certain formats or demonstrated other specific challenges related to some components of reading. Other projects focused on the appropriateness of test items and identified various ways to improve the accessibility of test items, while still measuring grade-level content.10

10 For more information, see: Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., & Bechard, S. (Eds.). (2013). Lessons learned in federally funded projects that can improve the instruction and assessment of low performing students with disabilities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Changes: None.

Comments: Some commenters stated that preparing students to be “college ready” should not be a goal for all public school students.

Discussion: We understand that not all students will enter a four-year college upon graduating from high school. However, we strongly believe that public schools should prepare all children to be ready for college or the workforce. According to research from the American Diploma Project, nearly two-thirds of new jobs require some form of postsecondary education.11 Therefore, in order to compete in the 21st century, regardless of whether a student has a disability, some form of postsecondary training or education is increasingly important for the student to become a productive and contributing adult.

11 Achieve. (2012). The Future of the U.S. Workforce: Middle Skills Jobs and the Growing Importance of Post Secondary Education. American Diploma Project, www.achieve.org.

Changes: None.

Responsibilities of IEP Teams and Students' Participation in Assessments

Comments: Many commenters expressed concern that no longer permitting the use of alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards and requiring students to take the general State assessments conflict with IDEA requirements. The commenters argued that the IDEA requires a student's education to be individualized in an IEP and not standardized with an assessment designed for the general student population. A few commenters stated that a student's IEP team is responsible for making educational decisions for the student and should decide whether an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards or a new more accessible general assessment is the more appropriate assessment for the student.

Discussion: The commenters are correct that the IDEA assigns the IEP team the responsibility for determining how a student with a disability participates in a State or district-wide assessment, including assessments required under title I of the ESEA (34 CFR 300.320(a)(6) and 300.160(a)). This IEP team responsibility is essential, given the importance of including all children with disabilities in a State's accountability system. These final regulations do not contravene this IEP team responsibility.

The IDEA, Part B regulations at 34 CFR 300.320(a)(6) address what each student's IEP must contain regarding participation in State and district-wide assessments. Each child's IEP must include, among other things: (1) A statement of any individual appropriate accommodations that are necessary to measure the academic achievement and functional performance of the child on State and district-wide assessments and (2) if the IEP team determines that a student with a disability must take an alternate assessment, a statement of why the child cannot participate in the regular assessment, and why the particular alternate assessment selected is appropriate for the child.

Under these final regulations, to ensure that students with disabilities are appropriately included in assessments conducted under title I, an IEP team will continue to have the authority and responsibility to determine whether students with disabilities should take the regular assessment with or without appropriate accommodations, an alternate assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards, if any, or, for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards.

Although an IEP team determines how a student with a disability participates in general State and district-wide assessments, States are responsible for adopting general and alternate assessments, consistent with applicable Title I regulations. Accordingly, IEP teams will continue to determine which assessment a student with a disability will take in accordance with 34 CFR 300.320(a)(6), and the final regulations in 34 CFR 300.160(c) and 200.6(a)(2). However, under these final regulations, an IEP team may no longer select an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards to assess students with disabilities under title I of the ESEA.

Changes: None.

Comments: Many commenters opposed the proposed amendments because they oppose standardized tests for students with disabilities. Some commenters stated that standardized tests cannot measure the achievement and progress of a student with a disability, particularly a student who is far behind academically. The commenters offered several alternatives to standardized assessments for students with disabilities including assessments that are specialized and personalized for each student; assessments that are based on each student's daily class work and cognitive level, rather than their age; assessments that use standards for passing that are developed by a student's IEP team; and individualized assessments that measure growth. Other commenters suggested allowing States to use a number of assessments to measure achievement for students with disabilities, rather than a single general assessment. A few commenters recommended using measures other than assessments to document the achievement of students with disabilities such as data on classroom performance collected by teachers and a student's progress toward meeting his or her IEP goals.

Finally, some commenters recommended that States, districts, and schools use measures other than performance on standardized assessments as evidence of success in educating students with disabilities. For example, commenters recommended using the number of students passing workforce certification tests, the number of students employed in a skilled job after high school, or the number of students who effectively use a college's disability assistance center.

Discussion: The assessment and accountability provisions of title I require that all students, including students with disabilities, be included in Statewide standardized assessments. 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)(C)(ix); 34 CFR 200.6. Section 612(a)(16)(A) of the IDEA and 34 CFR 300.160(a) also provide that all children with disabilities must be included in all general State and district-wide assessments, including assessments described under section 1111 of the ESEA, with appropriate accommodations and alternate assessments where necessary and as indicated in their respective IEPs. Parents and teachers have the right and need to know how much progress all students, including students with disabilities, are making each year toward college and career readiness. That means all students, including students with disabilities, need to take annual Statewide assessments. Accordingly, the commenters' proposals of alternative methods to measure the achievement of students with disabilities are inconsistent with title I and IDEA.

Changes: None.

Comments: Some commenters who supported the proposed regulations stated that not holding all students to the same standards has resulted in excusing districts from their responsibility to educate students with disabilities based on the general curriculum. For example, one parent whose child participated in an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards commented that the child received instruction that was not based on the general education curriculum, contrary to the requirements of the IDEA.

Discussion: Current IDEA regulations (34 CFR 300.320(a)(1)(i) and (4)(ii)) require that each child with a disability must receive instruction designed to enable the child to be involved in, and make progress in, the general education curriculum—i.e., the same curriculum as for nondisabled students. The importance of this requirement cannot be overemphasized. As the Department stated in the Analysis of Comments to the 2006 IDEA, Part B regulations, “[w]ith regard to the alignment of the IEP with the State's content standards, § 300.320(a)(1)(i) clarifies that the general education curriculum means the same curriculum as all other children. Therefore, an IEP that focuses on ensuring that a child is involved in the general education curriculum will necessarily be aligned with the State's content standards.” 71 FR 46540, 46662 (Aug. 14, 2006).

Under section 1111(b)(1)(B) of the ESEA, a State must apply its challenging academic content standards to all children in the State, including all children with disabilities. Section § 200.1(a)-(b) of the current title I regulations defines State academic content standards as grade-level standards. The Title I regulations permitting a State to define modified academic achievement standards and to administer alternate assessments based on those standards in assessing the academic progress of students with disabilities were not intended to change the requirement that those standards be based on challenging academic content standards. In fact, § 200.1(f)(2)(iii) of the current title I regulations provides that, if the IEPs of students assessed against modified academic achievement standards include goals for the subjects to be assessed, the IEPs of such students assessed based on modified academic achievement standards must include “goals based on the academic content standards for the grade in which a student is enrolled.” This provision has been removed because the authority to define modified academic achievement standards and administer alternate assessments based on those standards, has been removed. However, IEPs for all students with disabilities must continue to be aligned with a State's academic content standards and include annual goals, special education and related services, and supplementary aids and services and other supports that are designed to enable the student to be involved in, and make progress in, the general education curriculum based on the State's academic content standards.

As explained in the Senate Report accompanying the 2004 reauthorization of the IDEA, “[f]or most students with disabilities, many of their IEP goals would likely conform to State and district wide academic content standards and progress indicators consistent with standards based reform within education and the new requirements of NCLB. IEPs would also include other goals that the IEP Team deemed appropriate for the student, such as life skills, self-advocacy, social skills, and desired post-school activities. Moreover, since parents will receive individual student reports on their child with a disability's achievement on assessments under NCLB, they will have additional information to evaluate how well their children are doing against grade-level standards.” S. Rep. No. 108-185, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. 29 (Nov. 3, 2003). Reading the IDEA and ESEA requirements together, it is incumbent upon States and school districts to ensure that the IEPs of students with disabilities who are being assessed against grade-level academic achievement standards include content and instruction that gives these students the opportunity to gain the knowledge and skills necessary for them to meet those challenging standards. We strongly urge States and school districts to provide IEP Teams with technical assistance on ways to accomplish this, consistent with the purposes of the IDEA and the ESEA. Technical assistance is available from the following resources: National Center on Educational Outcomes http://www.cehd.umn.edu/nceo/default.html and The Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation http://csai-online.org/.

Changes: None.

Timeline To Discontinue Alternate Assessments Based on Modified Academic Achievement Standards

Comments: A number of commenters stated that eliminating the authority of a State to use alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards beginning in the 2014-2015 school year is premature. Some commenters stated that a more appropriate time to discontinue use of alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards would be after the 2014-2015 school year when many States would have completed their field tests and implemented new assessments aligned with college- and career-ready standards. One commenter referenced a report that stated that 10 to 15 percent of students with disabilities have disabilities that would preclude them from meeting new college- and career-ready standards. The commenter concluded that these estimates raise questions as to whether the new general assessments will be appropriate for all students with disabilities (with the exception of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who are eligible to take an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards). The commenters asserted that a State should retain the authority to administer alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards until there is information about how adequately the new general assessments include students with disabilities who currently take an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards.

Another commenter raised concerns about phasing out alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards at the same time that States are implementing new general assessments. The commenter stated that, at such a time of change, more flexibility rather than less flexibility should be provided to States. One commenter stated that there are indications that implementation of the new assessments will be delayed and that these delays would negatively affect students with disabilities who currently take an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards.

Discussion: With respect to the commenters who stated that eliminating the authority of a State to use alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards beginning in the 2014-2015 school year is premature, we disagree. We continue to believe that eliminating the authority for alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards to assess the academic progress of students with disabilities under title I of the ESEA at the same time those students are included in new general assessments is in the best interest of the students. All States that had implemented alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards have now adopted college- and career-ready standards. These States are all administering general assessments aligned to college- and career-ready standards in 2014-2015. To the extent those are RTTA assessments, they will not be delayed. Moreover, the RTTA assessments were field tested in 2013-2014 and those field tests included students assessed with an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards. As a result, students with disabilities who previously participated in an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards are making the transition to new general assessments along with their peers and have had the same benefit as their peers of instruction designed to meet new college- and career-ready standards. Therefore, it is appropriate that students with disabilities be assessed in 2014-2015 with the new general assessments that are aligned with their instruction.

Changes: None.

Comments: None.

Discussion: When the proposed regulations were published on August 23, 2013 (78 FR 52467), we anticipated finalizing the regulations prior to the end of the 2013-2014 school year. Therefore, we proposed regulations to allow States that administered alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards during the 2013-2014 school year to continue to administer those assessments and to use the results for accountability purposes through the 2013-2014 school year. Given that the final regulations were not published prior to the end of the 2013-2014 school year, several of the proposed regulations are no longer necessary. We are, therefore, removing proposed regulations that refer to the conditions under which a State could continue to use modified academic achievement standards and to administer alternate assessments based on those standards until the end of the 2013-2014 school year.

We also are amending current Title I regulations and making conforming changes to current IDEA regulations to remove provisions related to alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards and references to “modified academic achievement standards.” We did not include these changes in the NPRM because these provisions were still necessary during the 2013-2014 transition year provided for in the proposed regulations. Now that the transition year has passed, there is no longer a need to retain references to “modified academic achievement standards” or alternate assessments aligned with those standards, except for the provisions regarding reporting on the number of students with disabilities taking alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards in years prior to 2015-2016. In assessing the academic progress of students with disabilities under title I of the ESEA, a State retains its authority to continue to administer alternate assessments based on grade-level academic achievement standards, consistent with 34 CFR 200.6(a)(2)(ii)(A) and revised 300.160(c)(1). Additionally, a State retains its authority to adopt alternate academic achievement standards, as permitted in 34 CFR 200.1(d), and to measure the achievement of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities against those standards, as permitted in 34 CFR 200.6(a)(2)(ii)(B) and 300.160(c)(2)(iii) (new 300.160(c)(2)(ii)). As described below, we are making changes to §§ 200.1, 200.6, 200.13, and 200.20 in the Title I regulations and § 300.160 in the IDEA regulations.

Changes: Changes to § 200.1: We are removing proposed paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(4) (both of which refer to conditions under which a State could continue to administer alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards until the end of the 2013-2014 school year) and revising proposed paragraph (e)(1) (now paragraph (e)) to state that a State may not define modified academic achievement standards for any students with disabilities. We are removing as no longer necessary current paragraph (e)(2) (proposed redesignated paragraph (e)(3)), which sets out the criteria a State must establish for IEP teams to use to identify students with disabilities who were eligible to be assessed based on modified academic achievement standards. In addition, we are revising current paragraph (f) regarding State guidelines to remove all references to “modified academic achievement standards.” The requirements in current paragraph (f) applicable to alternate academic achievement standards remain unchanged and fully applicable to a State that has adopted such standards.

Changes to § 200.6: We are removing proposed paragraph (a)(3) so that a State may no longer measure the achievement of students with disabilities based on modified academic achievement standards, redesignating current paragraph (a)(4) as new paragraph (a)(3), and revising new paragraph (a)(3)(iv) (current paragraph (a)(4)(iv)) to require a State to report to the Secretary the number and percentage of children with disabilities, if any, participating in alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards in school years prior to 2015-2016.

Changes to current § 200.13: We are revising current paragraph (c) to remove references to “modified academic achievement standards,” references to the 2.0 percent cap on proficient and advanced scores of students taking alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards, and the Appendix.

The requirements in current paragraph (c) applicable to alternate academic achievement standards remain unchanged and fully applicable to a State that has adopted such standards.

Changes to current § 200.20: We are revising current paragraph (c)(3) to remove the reference to “modified academic achievement standards.” The requirements in current paragraph (c)(3) applicable to alternate academic achievement standards remain unchanged and fully applicable to a State that has adopted such standards. We also are removing current paragraph (g) (which describes a transition provision related to modified academic achievement standards) and redesignating current paragraph (h) as new paragraph (g).

Changes to current § 300.160: We are revising § 300.160 of the IDEA regulations, which addresses participation of students with disabilities in assessments, to make conforming changes with those made in the Title I regulations. We are removing current paragraph (c)(2)(ii), which authorizes alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards, as permitted in 34 CFR 200.1(e), in assessing the academic progress of students with disabilities under title I of the ESEA; and redesignating current paragraph (c)(2)(iii) as paragraph (c)(2)(ii). We are adding a new paragraph (c)(2)(iii) to make clear that, except as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(ii), a State's alternate assessments, if any, must measure the achievement of children with disabilities against the State's grade-level academic achievement standards, consistent with 34 CFR 200.6(a)(2)(ii)(A).

Consistent with 34 CFR 200.1(e), we are adding paragraph (c)(3) to make clear that a State may no longer adopt modified academic achievement standards for any students with disabilities under section 602(3) of the IDEA. We are revising current paragraphs (d) and (e) to remove references to “modified academic achievement standards”. Finally, we are revising current paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(5) to require a State to report to the Secretary the number and performance results, respectively, of children with disabilities, if any, participating in alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards in school years prior to 2015-2016.

The requirements in current paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) applicable to alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities remain unchanged and fully applicable to a State that has adopted such standards.

Technical Assistance and Monitoring

Comments: Several commenters offered suggestions regarding the technical assistance needed to help States, teachers, and students transition from alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards to new, more accessible general assessments. Some commenters recommended providing technical assistance to help States develop plans to phase out alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards, including support for technical issues such as measuring student growth when data on two years of performance on the same assessment are not available. Other commenters stated that technical assistance is needed to ensure that students with disabilities receive appropriate instruction and supports to allow them to successfully participate in the general assessment. Commenters also emphasized the need to provide training and professional development to all educators to ensure that students with disabilities have meaningful access to the general curriculum, and to emphasize the importance of educating IEP teams, including parents, on determining the appropriate assessments for students with disabilities.

Other commenters stated that States that implemented alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards learned important lessons, as did States that elected not to administer these alternate assessments and focus on improving student outcomes. The commenters recommended that the Department gather this information and use it to promote best practices for including students with disabilities in assessments required for accountability measures under the ESEA.

Some commenters encouraged the Department to monitor schools and States to ensure that supports are provided to students with disabilities who previously participated in alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards.

Discussion: The Department is supporting States in their transition to more accessible general assessment systems. In February 2014, the Department's Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) and Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) sponsored a meeting, “Successfully Transitioning Away from the 2% Assessment,” for State teams to jointly learn from and plan for discontinuing the implementation of alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards. Materials from this meeting are posted at www.cehd.umn.edu/nceo/AAMAStransition/default.html. The Department currently funds several technical assistance centers that provide resources on students with disabilities and the instructional supports they need to access the general curriculum and participate in the general assessment (e.g., the Center for Standards and Assessment Implementation; see http://csai-online.org/). Moreover, several technical assistance centers provide resources that specifically address the needs of students who have persistent academic and behavioral needs that require intensive intervention to succeed in school and prepare them to be college and career ready (e.g., the National Center on Intensive Intervention; see http://www.intensiveintervention.org/). In addition, the federally funded Parent Training and Information Centers (http://www.parentcenterhub.org/) focus on ensuring that parents of children with disabilities have the information they need to participate effectively in their child's education, including making decisions about the assessments that are appropriate for their child. OESE and OSERS will continue to work collaboratively with the Department's federally funded technical assistance and dissemination partners to ensure that all students, including students with disabilities, have the supports and instruction they need to meet college- and career-ready standards.

With regard to commenters who recommended the Department compile information learned by States that implemented alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards, we note that the work funded by the Department through the GSEG and EAG programs has contributed to the knowledge base about students who are struggling in school. Projects funded by these programs focused on a number of topics, including the characteristics of students who participated in alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards, barriers to their learning and performance, and approaches to making assessments more accessible. Several State projects that focused on instructional matters found that more effort was needed to support teachers in ensuring students with disabilities have meaningful opportunities to learn grade-level content. Other projects focused on the appropriateness of test items and identified various ways to improve the accessibility of test items, such as examining the difficulty of test items and making items more accessible and understandable without changing the knowledge or skill that is being measured (e.g., reducing unimportant or extraneous details from test items). The lessons learned from these projects are in “Lessons Learned in Federally Funded Projects that Can Improve the Instruction and Assessment of Low Performing Students with Disabilities,” available at: http://www.cehd.umn.edu/nceo/onlinepubs/lessonslearned.pdf.

With respect to commenters who urged the Department to monitor to ensure that supports are provided to students with disabilities who previously participated in alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards, pursuant to 34 CFR 300.149(b) and 300.600, an SEA must monitor public agencies' implementation of the Act and Part B regulations and ensure timely correction of any identified noncompliance. We expect, therefore, that SEAs will monitor compliance with the provisions in 34 CFR 300.160.

Changes: None.

Comments: A few commenters advised the Department to monitor data on the percentage of students participating in alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards following the phase out of alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards. One commenter stated that the Department should publish the assessment data from the 2012-2013 school year as part of the final regulations, including the number and percentage of students with disabilities who took the general assessment and the number and percentage of students who took an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards, and the proficiency rates for each group.

Discussion: Pursuant to the authority of section 618(a)(3) of the IDEA, the Secretary requires States to report the number of students with disabilities who took (1) the general assessment, with and without accommodations; (2) the alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards; (3) the alternate assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards; and (4) the alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards. These data will help SEAs monitor whether the number of students who take an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards increases significantly with the elimination of alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards.

Under title I and IDEA, States also are required to report the number of students with disabilities who scored at each academic achievement (performance) level (e.g., basic, proficient, above proficient). These numbers can be aggregated to derive the number of students with disabilities who scored at or above proficient on each assessment. However, States are not required to report the percentages of students with disabilities who scored at or above proficient on each assessment. The most recent year for which data are available is 2011-2012. For additional information on these data and links to the data files see: https://inventory.data.gov/dataset/95ca1187-69f5-4e70-9f8c-6bbbb3d6d94a/resource/446d130d-5160-4c27-a428-317c6333b38f. In addition, the Department routinely publishes on its Web site States' Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPR), which include data on the number and percentage of students with disabilities who participate in the general assessment and each type of alternate assessment (i.e., an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards, an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards, and an alternate assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards). The percentage of students with disabilities who score at or above proficient is also reported, but is not disaggregated by type of assessment (general versus alternate assessment). These data are posted at: www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/consolidated/index.html. Therefore, we decline to include the assessment data from the 2012-2013 school year in the final regulations, as requested by one commenter.

Changes: None.

Alternate Assessments Based on Alternate Academic Achievement Standards

Comments: Several commenters wrote about the need for alternate assessments for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. One commenter asked how the proposed regulations would affect students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who take alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards.

Discussion: The proposed regulations do not affect the assessment of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. A State continues to have the authority under 34 CFR 200.1(d) and 200.6(a)(2)(ii)(B) to define alternate academic achievement standards, administer alternate assessments based on those alternate academic achievement standards, and, subject to the one percent limitation on the number of proficient scores that may be counted for accountability purposes, include the results in accountability determinations.

Changes: None.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Regulatory Impact Analysis

Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

This final regulatory action is a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing these final regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that these final regulations are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, or tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined are necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

Potential Costs and Benefits: Under Executive Order 12866, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action and have determined that these regulations would not impose additional costs to States and LEAs or to the Federal government. For example, forty-two States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico agreed, in order to receive ESEA flexibility, to phase out their use of alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards, if they had those assessments, by the 2014-2015 school year. Only two States have an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards but have not received ESEA flexibility. Moreover, these regulations do not impose additional costs or administrative burdens because States, including the two discussed in the preceding sentence, are already developing and implementing general assessments aligned with college- and career-ready standards that will be more accessible to students with disabilities than those in place at the time States began developing alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards. These new assessments must be valid, reliable, and fair for all student subgroups, including students with disabilities, with the exception of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who are eligible to participate in alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards consistent with 34 CFR 200.6(a)(2)(ii)(B) (see 75 FR 18171, 18173 (Apr. 9, 2010)).

In this context, these regulations largely reflect already planned and funded changes in assessment practices and do not impose additional costs on States or LEAs or the Federal government. On the contrary, to the extent that these regulations reinforce the transition to State assessment systems with fewer components, the Department believes these regulations ultimately will reduce the costs of complying with ESEA assessment requirements, because States would no longer develop and implement separate alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards based on the new college- and career-ready standards.

Further, to the extent that States must transition students with disabilities who took an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards to new general assessments, funding to support such a transition is available through existing ESEA programs, such as the Grants for State Assessments program, which made available $378 million in State formula grant assistance in fiscal year 2015.

In sum, any additional costs imposed on States by these final regulations are estimated to be negligible, primarily because they reflect changes already under way in State assessment systems under the ESEA. Moreover, we believe any costs will be significantly outweighed by the potential educational benefits of increasing the access of students with disabilities to the general assessments as States develop new, more accessible assessments, including assessments aligned with college- and career-ready standards.

Regulatory Alternatives Considered

An alternative to these final regulations would be for the Secretary to leave in place the existing regulations permitting a State to define modified academic achievement standards and to develop and administer alternate assessments based on those standards. However, the Secretary believes that these amended regulations are needed to help refocus assessment efforts and resources on the development of new general assessments that are accessible to a broader range of students with disabilities. Such new general assessments will eliminate the usefulness of separate alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards for eligible students with disabilities.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

These regulations do not contain any information collection requirements.

Assessment of Educational Impact

Based on the response to the NPRM and on our review, we have determined that these final regulations do not require transmission of information that any other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to either of the program contact persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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.

List of Subjects 34 CFR Part 200

Education of disadvantaged, Elementary and secondary education, Grant programs—education, Indians—education, Infants and children, Juvenile delinquency, Migrant labor, Private schools, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

34 CFR Part 300

Administrative practice and procedure, Education of individuals with disabilities, Elementary and secondary education, Equal educational opportunity, Grant programs—education, Privacy, Private schools, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: August 18, 2015. Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends parts 200 and 300 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 200—TITLE I—IMPROVING THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THE DISADVANTAGED 1. The authority citation for part 200 continues to read as follows: Authority:

20 U.S.C. 6301 through 6578, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 200.1 is amended by: A. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the words “paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which apply” and adding, in their place, the words “paragraph (d) of this section, which applies”. B. In paragraph (a)(2), removing the words “paragraphs (d) and (e)” and adding, in their place, the words “paragraph (d)”. C. Revising paragraphs (e) and (f).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 200.1 State responsibilities for developing challenging academic standards.

(e) Modified academic achievement standards. A State may not define modified academic achievement standards for any students with disabilities under section 602(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

(f) State guidelines. If a State defines alternate academic achievement standards under paragraph (d) of this section, the State must do the following:

(1) Establish and monitor implementation of clear and appropriate guidelines for IEP teams to apply in determining students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who will be assessed based on alternate academic achievement standards.

(2) Inform IEP teams that students eligible to be assessed based on alternate academic achievement standards may be from any of the disability categories listed in the IDEA.

(3) Provide to IEP teams a clear explanation of the differences between assessments based on grade-level academic achievement standards and those based on alternate academic achievement standards, including any effects of State and local policies on the student's education resulting from taking an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards (such as whether only satisfactory performance on a regular assessment would qualify a student for a regular high school diploma).

(4) Ensure that parents of students selected to be assessed based on alternate academic achievement standards under the State's guidelines in this paragraph are informed that their child's achievement will be measured based on alternate academic achievement standards.

3. Section 200.6 is amended by: A. Removing paragraph (a)(3). B. Redesignating paragraph (a)(4) as (a)(3). C. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (a)(3)(iv).

The revision reads as follows:

§ 200.6 Inclusion of all students.

(a) * * *

(3) * * *

(iv) Alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards in school years prior to 2015-2016; and

4. Section 200.13 is amended by: A. Revising paragraph (c). B. Removing the Appendix.

The revision reads as follows:

§ 200.13 Adequate yearly progress in general.

(c)(1) In calculating AYP for schools, LEAs, and the State, a State must, consistent with § 200.7(a), include the scores of all students with disabilities.

(2) A State may include the proficient and advanced scores of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities based on the alternate academic achievement standards described in § 200.1(d), provided that the number of those scores at the LEA and at the State levels, separately, does not exceed 1.0 percent of all students in the grades assessed in reading/language arts and in mathematics.

(3) A State may not request from the Secretary an exception permitting it to exceed the cap on proficient and advanced scores based on alternate academic achievement standards under paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

(4)(i) A State may grant an exception to an LEA permitting it to exceed the 1.0 percent cap on proficient and advanced scores based on the alternate academic achievement standards described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section only if—

(A) The LEA demonstrates that the incidence of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities exceeds 1.0 percent of all students in the combined grades assessed;

(B) The LEA explains why the incidence of such students exceeds 1.0 percent of all students in the combined grades assessed, such as school, community, or health programs in the LEA that have drawn large numbers of families of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, or that the LEA has such a small overall student population that it would take only a few students with such disabilities to exceed the 1.0 percent cap; and

(C) The LEA documents that it is implementing the State's guidelines under § 200.1(f).

(ii) The State must review regularly whether an LEA's exception to the 1.0 percent cap is still warranted.

(5) In calculating AYP, if the percentage of proficient and advanced scores based on alternate academic achievement standards under § 200.1(d) exceeds the cap in paragraph (c)(2) of this section at the State or LEA level, the State must do the following:

(i) Consistent with § 200.7(a), include all scores based on alternate academic achievement standards.

(ii) Count as non-proficient the proficient and advanced scores that exceed the cap in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

(iii) Determine which proficient and advanced scores to count as non-proficient in schools and LEAs responsible for students who are assessed based on alternate academic achievement standards.

(iv) Include non-proficient scores that exceed the cap in paragraph (c)(2) of this section in each applicable subgroup at the school, LEA, and State level.

(v) Ensure that parents of a child who is assessed based on alternate academic achievement standards are informed of the actual academic achievement levels of their child.

5. Section 200.20 is amended by: A. Revising paragraph (c)(3). B. Removing paragraph (g). C. Redesignating paragraph (h) as paragraph (g).

The revision reads as follows:

§ 200.20 Making adequate yearly progress.

(c) * * *

(3) To count a student who is assessed based on alternate academic achievement standards described in § 200.1(d) as a participant for purposes of meeting the requirements of this paragraph, the State must have, and ensure that its LEAs adhere to, guidelines that meet the requirements of § 200.1(f).

PART 300—ASSISTANCE TO STATES FOR THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES 6. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority:

20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1406, 1411-1419, 3474, unless otherwise noted.

7. Section 300.160 is amended by: A. Removing paragraph (c)(2)(ii). B. Redesignating paragraph (c)(2)(iii) as (c)(2)(ii). C. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(2)(ii), removing the final punctuation “.” and adding, in its place, “; and”. D. Adding a new paragraph (c)(2)(iii). E. Adding a new paragraph (c)(3). F. Revising paragraphs (d), (e), (f)(3), and (f)(5) introductory text.

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 300.160 Participation in assessments.

(c) * * *

(2) * * *

(iii) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, a State's alternate assessments, if any, must measure the achievement of children with disabilities against the State's grade-level academic achievement standards, consistent with 34 CFR 200.6(a)(2)(ii)(A).

(3) Consistent with 34 CFR 200.1(e), a State may not adopt modified academic achievement standards for any students with disabilities under section 602(3) of the Act.

(d) Explanation to IEP teams. A State (or in the case of a district-wide assessment, an LEA) must provide IEP teams with a clear explanation of the differences between assessments based on grade-level academic achievement standards and those based on alternate academic achievement standards, including any effects of State or local policies on the student's education resulting from taking an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards (such as whether only satisfactory performance on a regular assessment would qualify a student for a regular high school diploma).

(e) Inform parents. A State (or in the case of a district-wide assessment, an LEA) must ensure that parents of students selected to be assessed based on alternate academic achievement standards are informed that their child's achievement will be measured based on alternate academic achievement standards.

(f) * * *

(3) The number of children with disabilities, if any, participating in alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards in school years prior to 2015-2016.

(5) Compared with the achievement of all children, including children with disabilities, the performance results of children with disabilities on regular assessments, alternate assessments based on grade-level academic achievement standards, alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards (prior to 2015-2016), and alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards if—

[FR Doc. 2015-20736 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0537; FRL-9932-55-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the District of Columbia State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision addresses the infrastructure requirements for interstate transport pollution with respect to the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving this revision in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES:

This rule is effective on October 20, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by September 21, 2015. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0537 by one of the following methods:

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

B. Email: [email protected]

C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0537, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0537. 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 electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the District of Columbia Department of the Environment, Air Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Emlyn Vélez-Rosa, (215) 814-2038, or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On July 16, 2015, the District of Columbia (the District), through the District Department of the Environment (DDOE), submitted a formal revision to its SIP. The SIP revision addresses the infrastructure requirements for interstate transport of pollution under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

A. General

Whenever new or revised NAAQS are promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a plan for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is required to address basic program elements, including, but not limited to, regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure requirements.

On September 21, 2006, EPA promulgated a new 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS became effective on December 18, 2006. See 40 CFR 50.13.

This rulemaking action pertains to the District's July 16, 2015 infrastructure SIP revision addressing the interstate transport pollution requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has taken previous rulemaking actions on the District's SIP revision addressing infrastructure elements in section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 20237 (April 12, 2011) (final approval of the District's September 21, 2009 SIP revision addressing several section 110(a)(2) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS) and 77 FR 5191 (February 2, 2012) (final approval of the District's SIP revision addressing section 110(a)(2)(i)(II) for visibility protection).

B. EPA's Infrastructure Requirements

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make infrastructure SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof).” Infrastructure SIP submissions should provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address.

Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements. EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Infrastructure Guidance).1 EPA developed this document to provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions. The guidance also discusses the substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section 110(a)(2).2 EPA interprets section 110(a)(1) and (2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.

1 “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013. This guidance is available online at http://www.epa.gov/oar/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf.

2 On September 25, 2009, EPA issued “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(l) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),” Memorandum from William T. Hartnet, Director, Air Quality Policy Division. This guidance provided that each state's SIP submission for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS must discuss whether emissions from the state significantly contribute to nonattainment of the NAAQS or interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state and must address any such impact. This guidance is available online at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf.

Additionally, EPA has provided in previous rulemaking actions a detailed discussion of the Agency's approach in reviewing infrastructure SIPs, including the Agency's longstanding interpretation of requirements for section 110(a)(1) and (2), the interpretation that the CAA allows states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements in section 110(a)(2) for a specific NAAQS, and the interpretation that EPA has the ability to act on separate elements of 110(a)(2) for a NAAQS in separate rulemaking actions. For example, see EPA's proposed rulemaking action approving portions of the District's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. See 80 FR 2865 (January 21, 2015).

In particular, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires state SIPs to address any emissions activity in one state that contributes significantly to nonattainment, or interferes with maintenance, of the NAAQS in any downwind state. EPA sometimes refers to these requirements as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance), or conjointly, the interstate pollution transport requirements. EPA also commonly refers to these provisions conjointly as the “good neighbor” provision of the CAA. Specifically, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires the elimination of upwind state emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state.

A combination of local emissions and emissions from upwind sources impacts air quality in any given location. Emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) can react in the atmosphere to form PM2.5 pollution. Similarly, NOX emissions can react in the atmosphere to create ground-level ozone pollution. These pollutants can travel great distances affecting air quality and public health locally and regionally. The transport of these pollutants across state borders makes it difficult for downwind states to meet health-based air quality standards for PM2.5 and ozone. EPA has taken actions to facilitate implementing the “good neighbor” provision, including the promulgation and administration of various rules, such as the NOX Budget Trading Program, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), and most recently, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).

C. Background on CSAPR Rule

On August 8, 2011, EPA promulgated CSAPR to address SO2 and NOX emissions from electric generating units (EGUs) in several states in the Eastern United States that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in one or more downwind states with respect to one or more of the 1997 annual PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).3

3 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially issued a decision in 2012 vacating CSAPR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012); however, on April 29, 2014, the United States Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's decision and remanded the matter, including CSAPR, to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings in accordance with its ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit lifted the stay on CSAPR, and EPA began implementation of CSAPR on January 1, 2015. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), Order at 3. See also 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) (interim final rulemaking clarifying how EPA will implement CSAPR to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect the 1997 annual PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS). On July 28, 2015, in a subsequent decision on certain “as applied” challenges to CSAPR, the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA for reconsideration specific emission allowances for ozone season NOX and SO2 for specific states, not including the District. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13039 (D.C. Cir. July 28, 2015). Because the District has no emission sources subject to CSAPR and is not one of the states whose ozone season NOX or SO2 allowances were remanded by the D.C. Circuit's July 28, 2015 decision, EPA asserts this recent July 28, 2015 decision in EME Homer City by the D.C. Circuit has no impact on our conclusion in this rulemaking that the District has satisfied its obligation for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as explained in detail in the CSAPR rulemaking. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).

In CSAPR, EPA defined what portion of an upwind state's emissions “significantly contributed” to ozone or PM2.5 nonattainment or interference with maintenance areas in downwind states with respect to the 1997 annual PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. CSAPR requires states to eliminate their “significant contribution” emissions by setting a pollution limit (or budget). EPA used a state-specific methodology to identify necessary emission reductions required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and used a detailed air quality analysis to determine whether a state's contribution to downwind air quality problems was at or above specific thresholds. EPA defined “significant contribution” using a multi-factor analysis that took into account both air quality and cost considerations.

In promulgating CSAPR, EPA concluded that the District's SIP satisfied the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and concluded no emission sources in the District were subject to CSAPR. As discussed in the preamble of the CSAPR rulemaking, EPA had combined emission contributions projected in the air quality modeling from the State of Maryland and the District to determine whether those jurisdictions collectively contribute to any downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor in amounts equal to or greater than the one percent thresholds which EPA used to identify “significant contribution” for CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA's modeling confirmed that the combined contributions exceeded the air quality threshold at downwind receptors for the 1997 ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. However, the District was not included in CSAPR because in the second step of EPA's significant contribution analysis, EPA concluded that there are no emission reductions available from EGUs in the District of Columbia at the cost thresholds deemed sufficient to eliminate significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the NAAQS considered at the linked receptors. See 76 FR 48208.

In 2011, EPA found only one facility, Benning Road Generating Station, with units meeting CSAPR applicability requirements in the District, and EPA's projections did not show any generation from this facility to be economic under any scenario analyzed and the facility had also announced plans to retire its units in early 2012. Subsequently, Benning Road permanently retired as an air pollution source in 2012. Because EPA projected Benning Road to have zero emissions in 2012, EPA also projected zero emissions of SO2 and NOX in the District for EGUs that would meet the CSAPR applicability requirements. Therefore, EPA did not identify any emission reductions available at any of the cost thresholds considered in CSAPR's multi-factor analysis to identify significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance. For that reason, EPA concluded that no additional limits or reductions were necessary, at that time, in the District to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Id. 4

4 EPA's determination that the District's SIP satisfied requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and its determination that no emission sources in the District were subject to CSAPR are not affected by the recent decision of the D.C. Circuit to remand specific portions of CSAPR to EPA for further consideration. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13039 (D.C. Cir. July 28, 2015) (remanding portions of CSAPR to EPA to reconsider specific state emission allowances for ozone season NOX and SO2 for specific states, not including the District).

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA's Evaluation

The July 16, 2015 SIP revision consists of a letter from the DDOE affirming that the District has already satisfied the transport requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained in this letter, the District's determination is based on two aspects: (1) EPA's conclusion in the preamble for CSAPR that the District had no emission reductions at cost thresholds determined by EPA as necessary to address the District's transport requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 and 1997 ozone NAAQS; and (2) the District's declaration provided in the SIP submittal that it currently has no EGUs within the District and the District's prior EGU, the Benning Road Generating Station, permanently shut down in 2012.

As discussed in the preamble of the final CSAPR rulemaking and explained in the District's July 16, 2015 SIP submittal, EPA had concluded that there are no emission reductions available from EGUs in the District at the cost thresholds deemed sufficient to eliminate significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the NAAQS considered at the linked receptors. Therefore, EPA had concluded that the District satisfied the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 78 FR at 48262.

The District's July 16, 2015 SIP submission also certifies that the District currently has no EGUs that could significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The District confirms that Benning Road Generating Station, an EGU which was operational at the time of the promulgation of CSAPR in 2011, permanently retired as expected in 2012. The District's negative declaration further supports EPA's determination in the CSAPR preamble that the District's SIP needs no further measures or revisions to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving the District's SIP revision submitted on July 16, 2015 addressing the requirements for the District under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding interstate transport pollution for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA concurs with the District's determination that it has no EGUs and no emissions reductions are needed for the SIP to address significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on October 20, 2015 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 21, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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 beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 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, 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 20, 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 action. This rulemaking action, addressing the interstate pollution transport requirements for the District of Columbia with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 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.

Dated: August 7, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

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.

Subpart J—District of Columbia
2. In § 52.470, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an entry for “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS” to the end of the table to read as follows:
§ 52.470 Identification of plan.

(e) * * *

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS District of Columbia 07/16/15 8/21/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] This action addresses the following CAA elements, or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
[FR Doc. 2015-20527 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0564; FRL-9932-83-Region 7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Kansas; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Kansas in a letter dated March 30, 2015. This SIP revision provides Kansas' state-determined allowance allocations for existing electric generating units (EGUs) in the State for the 2016 control periods and replaces certain allowance allocations for the 2016 control periods established by EPA under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). The CSAPR addresses the “good neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) that requires states to reduce the transport of pollution that significantly affects downwind air quality. In this final action EPA is approving Kansas' SIP revision, incorporating the state-determined allocations for the 2016 control periods into the SIP, and amending the regulatory text of the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to reflect this approval and inclusion of the state-determined allocations. EPA is taking direct final action to approve Kansas' SIP revision because it meets the requirements of the CAA and the CSAPR requirements to replace EPA's allowance allocations for the 2016 control periods. This action is being taken pursuant to the CAA and its implementing regulations. EPA's allocations of CSAPR trading program allowances for Kansas for control periods in 2017 and beyond remain in place until the State submits and EPA approves state-determined allowance allocations for those control periods through another SIP revision. The CSAPR FIPs for Kansas remain in place until such time as the State decides to replace the FIPs with a SIP revision.

DATES:

This direct final rule will be effective September 30, 2015, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 21, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, we 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-R07-OAR-2015-0564, by one of the following methods:

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

2. Email: [email protected]

3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Lachala Kemp, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0564. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. 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, i.e., 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 form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30 excluding legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lachala Kemp, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913-551-7214 or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

I. What is being addressed in this document? II. 2016 CSAPR SIPs III. What is EPA's analysis of Kansas' submission? IV. Final Action I. What is being addressed in this document?

EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the SIP submitted by the State of Kansas in a letter dated March 30, 2015, that modifies the allocations of annual NOX allowances established by EPA under the CSAPR FIPs for existing EGUs for the 2016 control periods.1 The CSAPR allows a subject state, instead of EPA, to allocate allowances under the SO2 annual, NOX annual, and NOX ozone season trading programs to existing EGUs in the State for the 2016 control periods provided that the state meets certain regulatory requirements.2 EPA issued the CSAPR on August 8, 2011, to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements concerning the interstate transport of air pollution and to replace the Clean Air Interstate Rule 3 (CAIR), which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) remanded to EPA for replacement.4 EPA found that emissions of SO2 and NOX in 28 eastern, midwestern, and southern states 5 contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in one or more downwind states with respect to one or more of three air quality standards—the annual PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 1997 6 (15 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3)), the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 2006 7 (35 µg/m3), and the 8-hour ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1997 8 (0.08 parts per million). The CSAPR identified emission reduction responsibilities of upwind states, and also promulgated enforceable FIPs to achieve the required emission reductions in each of these states through cost effective and flexible requirements for power plants.

1 Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals; August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208).

2 The CSAPR is implemented in two Phases (I and II) with Phase I referring to 2015 and 2016 control periods, and Phase II consisting of 2017 and beyond control periods.

3 Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162).

4North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified on reh'g, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

5 The CSAPR obligations related to ozone-season NOX emissions for five states were established in a separate rule referred to as the Supplemental Rule. Federal Implementation Plans for Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin and Determination for Kansas Regarding Interstate Transport of Ozone; December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80760).

6 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852).

7 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144).

8 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone; July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856).

Kansas is subject to the FIPs that implement the CSAPR and require certain EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered Federal SO2 annual and NOX annual cap-and trade programs.9 Kansas' March 30, 2015, SIP revision allocates allowances under the CSAPR to existing EGUs in the State for the 2016 control periods only. Kansas' SIP revision includes state-determined allocations for the CSAPR NOX annual trading program, and complies with the 2016 NOX allowance allocation SIP requirements set forth at 40 CFR 52.38. Pursuant to these regulations, a state may replace EPA's CSAPR NOX allowance allocations for existing EGUs for the 2016 control periods provided that the state submits a timely SIP revision containing those allocations to EPA that meets the requirements in 40 CFR 52.38.

9 On July 28, 2015, the DC Circuit, issued an opinion upholding CSAPR, but remanding without vacatur certain state emissions budgets to EPA for reconsideration. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302, slip op. CSAPR implementation at this time remains unaffected by the court decision, and EPA will address the remanded emissions budgets in a separate rulemaking. Moreover, Kansas's emissions budgets were not among those remanded to EPA for reconsideration.

Through this action, EPA is approving Kansas' March 30, 2015, SIP revision, incorporating the allocations into the SIP, and amending the CSAPR FIP's regulatory text for Kansas at 40 CFR 52.882 to reflect this approval and inclusion of the state-determined allowance allocation for the 2016 control periods. EPA's allocations of CSAPR trading program allowances for Kansas for control periods in 2017 and beyond remain in place until the State submits and EPA approves state-determined allocations for those control periods through another SIP revision. EPA is not making any other changes to the CSAPR FIPs for Kansas in this action. The CSAPR FIPs for Kansas remain in place until such time the State decides to replace the FIPs with a SIP revision. EPA is taking direct final action to approve Kansas' March 30, 2015, SIP submission because it complies with the CAA and the CSAPR regulations. Below is a summary of the provisions allowing a state to submit SIP revisions to EPA to modify the 2016 allowance allocations. For more detailed information on the CSAPR, refer to the August 8, 2011, preamble and other subsequent related rulemakings referenced throughout this rulemaking.

II. 2016 CSAPR SIPs

The CSAPR allows states to determine allowance allocations for 2016 control periods through submittal of a complete SIP revision that is narrower in scope than an abbreviated or full SIP submission that states may use to replace the FIPs and/or to determine allocations for control periods in 2017 and beyond. Pursuant to the CSAPR, a state may adopt and include in a SIP revision for the 2016 control period a list of units and the amount of allowances allocated to each unit on the list, provided the list of units and the allocations meet specific requirements set forth in 40 CFR 52.38(a)(3) and (b)(3) for NOX and 52.39(d) and (g) for SO2. If these requirements are met, the Administrator will approve the SIP allowance allocation provisions as replacing the comparable provisions in 40 CFR part 97 for the State. SIP revisions under this expedited process may only allocate the amount of each state budget minus the new unit set-aside and the Indian country new unit set-aside. For states subject to multiple trading programs, options are available to submit 2016 state-determined allocations for one or more of the applicable trading programs while leaving unchanged the EPA-determined allocations for 2016 in the remaining applicable trading programs.10

10 States can also submit SIP revisions to replace EPA-determined, existing-unit allocations with state-determined allocations for control periods after 2016 via a separate process described at 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(4), and (b)(5) and 52.39(e), (f), (h), and (i).

In developing this procedure, EPA set deadlines for submitting the SIP revisions for 2016 allocations and for recordation of the allocations that balanced the need to record allowances sufficiently ahead of the control periods with the desire to allow state flexibility for 2016 control periods. These deadlines allow sufficient time for EPA to review and approve these SIP revisions, taking into account that EPA approval must be final and effective before the 2016 allocations can be recorded and the allowances are available for trading. The CSAPR, as revised, set a deadline of October 17, 2011, or March 6, 2015, (in the case of allocations of ozone season allowances for states covered by the Supplemental Rule) for states to notify EPA of their intent to submit these SIP revisions.11 See 40 CFR 52.38 and 52.39.

11 For the five states (Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin) covered in the Supplemental Rule in the case of ozone season NOX, March 6, 2012, was originally the date by which notifications of intentions to submit state allocations were due to the Administrator, but the date was later delayed to March 6, 2015. See 76 FR 80760 and 79 FR 71671.

Twelve states, including Kansas, notified EPA by the applicable deadlines of their intentions to submit SIP revisions affecting 2016 allocations.12 Pursuant to EPA's December 3, 2014, Interim Final Rule,13 the deadlines to submit these SIPs were delayed by three years, making the deadline for these twelve states to submit a 2016 allocation SIP revision April 1, 2015, or October 1, 2015 (in the case of allocations of ozone season NOX allowances for states covered by the Supplemental Rule). Each state may submit a SIP to allocate allowances for the 2016 control periods provided it meets the following requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 52.38 and 52.39:

12 The docket for this action contains Kansas' October 14, 2011 letter notifying EPA of its intention to submit a SIP revision.

13 Rulemaking to Amend Dates in Federal Implementation Plans Addressing Interstate Transport of Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter; December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71663).

• Notify the EPA Administrator by October 17, 2011 or March 6, 2015, (in the case of allocations of ozone season NOX allowances for states covered by the Supplemental Rule) of intent to submit state allocations for the 2016 control periods in a format specified by the Administrator. See 40 CFR 52.38(a)(3)(v)(A), 52.38(b)(3)(v)(A), 52.39(d)(5)(i), and 52.39(g)(5)(i).

• Submit to EPA the SIP revision modifying allowance allocations for the 2016 control periods no later than April 1, 2015, or October 1, 2015 (in the case of allocations of ozone season NOX allowances for states covered by the Supplemental Rule). See 40 CFR 52.38(a)(3)(v)(B), 52.38(b)(3)(v)(B), 52.39(d)(5)(ii), and 52.39(g)(5)(ii).

• Provide 2016 state-determined allocations only for units within the State that commenced commercial operation before January 1, 2010. See 40 CFR 52.38(a)(3)(i), 52.38(b)(3)(i), 52.39(d)(1), and 52.39(g)(1).

• Ensure that the sum of the state-determined allocations is equal to or less than the amount of the total state budget for 2016 minus the sum of the new unit set-aside and the Indian country new unit set-aside. See 40 CFR 52.38(a)(3)(ii), 52.38(b)(3)(ii), 52.39(d)(2), and 52.39(g)(2).

• Submit the list of units and the 2016 state-determined allowance allocations as a SIP revision electronically to EPA in the format specified by the Administrator. See 40 CFR 52.38(a)(3)(iii), 52.38(b)(3)(iii), 52.39(d)(3), and 52.39(g)(3).

• Confirm that the SIP revision does not provide for any changes to the listed units or allocations after approval of the SIP revision by EPA and does not provide for any change to any allocation determined and recorded by the Administrator under subpart AAAAA, BBBBB, CCCCC, or DDDDD of 40 CFR part 97. See 40 CFR 52.38(a)(3)(iv), 52.38(b)(3)(iv), 52.39(d)(4), and 52.39(g)(4).

Additionally, these limited SIP revisions for the 2016 state-determined allocations are required to comply with SIP completeness elements set forth in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (i.e., conduct adequate public notice of the submission, provide evidence of legal authority to adopt SIP revisions, and ensure that the SIP is submitted to EPA by the State's Governor or his/her designee). If a state submits to EPA a 2016 CSAPR SIP revision meeting all the above-described requirements, including compliance with the applicable notification and submission deadlines, and EPA approves the SIP submission by October 1, 2015 (or April 1, 2016, in the case of allocations of ozone season NOX allowances for states covered by the Supplemental Rule), EPA will record state-determined allocations for 2016 by October 1, 2015, (or April 1, 2016) into the Allowance Management System (AMS). Kansas' March 30, 2015 SIP submission addresses the aforementioned requirements allowing a state to allocate 2016 CSAPR allowances for the annual NOX trading program. EPA's analysis of Kansas's SIP submission is explained below.

III. What is EPA's analysis of Kansas' SIP submission?

On March 30, 2015, Kansas submitted a SIP revision intended to replace the CSAPR FIP allocations of the CSAPR NOX annual allowances for the 2016 control periods. For approval, this SIP revision must meet the applicable requirements found in 40 CFR 52.38(a)(3) described in section II of this document. The following is a list of criteria under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(3) and (b)(3) and 52.39(d) and (g), described above in this document, and the results of EPA's analysis of Kansas' SIP revision:

A. Notification from a State to EPA must be received by October 17, 2011, or March 6, 2015, in the case of ozone season NOX SIP revisions for states covered by the December 27, 2011 Supplemental Rule (76 FR 80760), of its intent to submit a complete SIP revision for 2016 existing unit allocations (40 CFR 52.38(a)(3)(v)(A), 52.38(b)(3)(v)(A), 52.39(d)(5)(i), and 52.39(g)(5)(i)).

On October 14, 2011, Kansas notified EPA via a letter of the State's intent to submit complete SIP revisions for allocating TR NOX Annual allowances 14 to existing units (i.e., units that commenced commercial operation before January 1, 2010) for the second implementation year of the CSAPR trading programs.15

14 The abbreviation “TR” in certain legal terms used in the CSAPR trading programs, including the legal terms for the trading program allowances, stands for “Transport Rule,” an earlier name for the CSAPR.

15 The October 14, 2011 letter submitted to EPA by Kansas also indicates that the State intended to submit a SIP revision for allocating TR NOX Ozone Season allowances (if EPA's proposal to include Kansas in that program was finalized) and TR SO2 Group 2 allowances. After that letter was submitted EPA did not finalize the proposal to include Kansas in the TR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program and the State decided not to submit a SIP revision for the TR SO2 Group 2 allocations for the 2016 control period.

B. A complete SIP revision must be submitted to EPA no later than April 1, 2015, or October 1, 2015, in the case of ozone season NOX SIP revisions for states covered by the December 27, 2011 Supplemental Rule (76 FR 80760) (40 CFR 52.38(a)(3)(v)(B), 52.38(b)(3)(v)(B), 52.39(d)(5)(ii), and 52.39(g)(5)(ii)).

EPA has reviewed the March 30, 2015 submittal from Kansas and found it to be complete. This submittal satisfies the applicable elements of SIP completeness set forth in appendix V to 40 CFR part 51.

C. The SIP revision should include a list of TR NOX Annual, TR NOX Ozone Season, TR SO2 Group 1 or Group 2 units, whichever is applicable, that are in the State and commenced commercial operation before January 1, 2010 (40 CFR 52.38(a)(3)(i), 52.38(b)(3)(i), 52.39(d)(1), and 52.39(g)(1)).

As part of Kansas' SIP revision, the State submitted a list of units to be allocated TR NOX Annual allowances for the 2016 control period. The list identifies the same units as were identified in the notice of data availability (NODA) published by EPA on December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71674). Hence, EPA has determined that each unit on the list submitted by Kansas as part of the SIP revision is located in the State of Kansas and had commenced commercial operation before January 1, 2010.

D. The total amount of TR NOX Annual, TR NOX Ozone Season, or TR SO2 Group 1 or Group 2 allowance allocations, whichever is applicable, must not exceed the amount, under 40 CFR 97.410(a), 97.510(a), 97.610(a), or 97.710(a), whichever is applicable, for the State and the control periods in 2016, of the TR NOX Annual, TR NOX Ozone Season, TR SO2 Group 1 or Group 2 trading budget minus the sum of the new unit set-aside and Indian country new unit set-aside (40 CFR 52.38(a)(3)(ii), 52.38(b)(3)(ii), 52.39(d)(2), and 52.39(g)(2)).

As amended, the CSAPR established the NOX Annual budget, new unit set-aside, and Indian country new unit set-aside for Kansas for the 2016 control period as 31,354 tons, 596 tons, and 31 tons, respectively. Kansas' SIP revision, for approval in this action, does not affect this budget, which is a total amount of allowances available for allocation for the 2016 control period under the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program under the CSAPR FIPs. In short, the abbreviated SIP revision only affects allocations of allowances under the established state budget.

The Kansas SIP revision allocating TR NOX Annual allowances for the 2016 control period does not establish allocations exceeding the amount of the budget under § 97.410(a) minus the sum of the new unit set-aside and the Indian County new unit set aside (31,354 tons−(596 tons + 31 tons) = 30,727 tons). The Kansas SIP revision allocates 30,727 TR NOX Annual allowances to existing units in the State.

E. The list should be submitted electronically in the format specified by the EPA (40 CFR 52.38(a)(3)(iii), 52.38(b)(3)(iii), 52.39(d)(3), and 52.39(g)(3)).

On March 30, 2015, EPA received an email submittal from Kansas in the EPA-approved format.

F. The SIP revision should not provide for any changes to the listed units or allocations after approval of the SIP revision and should not provide for any change to any allocation determined and recorded by the Administrator under subpart AAAAA, BBBBB, CCCCC, or DDDDD of 40 CFR part 97 (40 CFR 52.38(a)(3)(iv), 52.38(b)(3)(iv), 52.39(d)(4), and 52.39(g)(4)).

The Kansas SIP revision does not provide for any changes to the listed units or allocations after approval of the SIP revision and does not provide for any change to any allocation determined and recorded by the Administrator under subpart AAAAA, BBBBB, CCCCC, or DDDDD of 40 CFR part 97.

For the reasons discussed above, Kansas' SIP revision complies with the 2016 allowance allocation SIP requirements established in the CSAPR FIPs as codified at 40 CFR 52.38. Through this action, EPA is approving Kansas' March 30, 2015, SIP revision, incorporating the allocations into the SIP, and amending the CSAPR FIPs' regulatory text for Kansas at 40 CFR 52.882 to reflect this approval and inclusion of the state-determined allowance allocations for the 2016 control periods. EPA is not making any other changes to the CSAPR FIPs for Kansas in this action. EPA is taking final action to approve Kansas' March 30, 2015 SIP revision because it is in accordance with the CAA and its implementing regulations.

IV. Final Action

EPA is taking final action to approve Kansas' March 30, 2015, CSAPR SIP revisions that provide Kansas' state-determined allowance allocations for existing EGUs in the State for the 2016 control periods to replace certain allowance allocations for the 2016 control periods established by EPA under the CSAPR. Consistent with the flexibility given to states in the CSAPR FIPs at 40 CFR 52.38, Kansas' SIP revision allocates allowances to existing EGUs in the State under the CSAPR's NOX annual trading program. Kansas' SIP revision meets the applicable requirements in 40 CFR 52.38 for NOX annual allowance allocations for the 2016 control periods. EPA is approving Kansas' SIP revision because it is in accordance with the CAA and its implementing regulations.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective September 30, 2015 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by September 21, 2015.

If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on September 30, 2015 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 20, 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

Dated: August 12, 2015. Mark Hague, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

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

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart R—Kansas
2. In § 52.870(e), the table is amended by adding a new entry (40) at the end of the table to read as follows:
§ 52.870 Identification of plan.

(e) * * *

EPA-Approved Kansas Nonregulatory Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable
  • geographic or
  • nonattainment area
  • State
  • submittal
  • date
  • EPA Approval
  • date
  • Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * (40) Cross State Air Pollution Rule—State-Determined Allowance Allocations for the 2016 control periods Statewide 3/30/15 8/21/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation]
    3. Section 52.882 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
    § 52.882 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?

    (a) * * *

    (3) Pursuant to § 52.38(a)(3), Kansas' state-determined TR NOX Annual allowance allocations established in the March 30, 2015, SIP revision replace the unit-level TR NOX Annual allowance allocation provisions of the TR NOX Annual Trading Program at 40 CFR 97.411(a) for the State for the 2016 control period with a list of TR NOX Annual units that commenced operation prior to January 1, 2010, in the State and the state-determined amount of TR NOX Annual allowances allocated to each unit on such list for the 2016 control period, as approved by EPA on August 21, 2015, [Insert Federal Register citation].

    [FR Doc. 2015-20629 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 271 [EPA-R10-RCRA-2015-0307; FRL-9932-87-Region 10] Idaho: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program; Revision AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Idaho applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for final authorization of certain changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. On June 2, 2015, the EPA published a proposed rule to authorize the changes and opened a public comment period under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-2015-0307. The comment period closed on July 2, 2015. The EPA received no comments on the proposed rule. The EPA has determined that the revisions to the Idaho hazardous waste management program satisfy all the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. The EPA is approving these revisions to Idaho's authorized hazardous waste management program in this final rule.

    DATES:

    Final authorization for the revisions to the hazardous waste management program in Idaho shall be effective at 1 p.m. EST on September 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    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., Confidential Business Information 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 EPA Region 10 Library, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101. The EPA Region 10 Library is open from 9:00 a.m. to noon, and 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. pst Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Region 10 Library telephone number is (206) 553-1289.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barbara McCullough, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mail Stop: AWT-150, Seattle, Washington 98101, email: [email protected], phone number (206) 553-2416.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Why are revisions to state programs necessary?

    States which have received final authorization from the EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, states must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize their changes. Changes to state programs may be necessary when Federal or state statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to the EPA's regulations codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.

    Idaho's hazardous waste management program received final authorization effective on April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015, March 29, 1990). Subsequently, the EPA authorized revisions to the State's program effective June 5, 1992 (57 FR 11580, April 6, 1992), August 10, 1992 (57 FR 24757, June 11, 1992), June 11, 1995 (60 FR 18549, April 12, 1995), January 19, 1999 (63 FR 56086, October 21, 1998), July 1, 2002 (67 FR 44069, July 1, 2002), March 10, 2004 (69 FR 11322, March 10, 2004), July 22, 2005 (70 FR 42273, July 22, 2005), February 26, 2007 (72 FR 8283, February 26, 2007), December 23, 2008 (73 FR 78647, December 23, 2008), and July 11, 2012 (77 FR 34229, June 11, 2012).

    This final rule addresses a program revision application that Idaho submitted to the EPA in February 2015, in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21, seeking authorization of changes to the State program. On June 2, 2015, the EPA published a proposed rule (80 FR 31338) stating the Agency's intent to grant final authorization for revisions to Idaho's hazardous waste management program. The public comment period on this proposed rule ended on July 2, 2015, with no comments received.

    B. What decisions have we made in this final rule concerning authorization?

    The EPA has made a final determination that Idaho's revisions to its authorized hazardous waste management program meet all the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA for authorization. Therefore, the EPA is authorizing the revised State of Idaho hazardous waste management program for all delegable Federal hazardous waste regulations codified by Idaho as of July 1, 2013, as described in the Attorney General's Statement in the February 2015 program revision application, and as discussed in Section E of this rule. Idaho's authorized program will be responsible for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its program revision application subject to the limitations of RCRA, including the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) 42 U.S.C. 6924, et seq. (1984). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA, and which are not less stringent than existing requirements, take effect in authorized states before the states are authorized for the requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Idaho, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.

    C. What will be the effect of this action?

    The effect of this action is that a facility in Idaho subject to RCRA must comply with the authorized state program requirements in lieu of the corresponding Federal requirements to comply with RCRA. Additionally, such persons must comply with any applicable Federal requirements, such as, for example, HSWA regulations issued by the EPA for which the State has not received authorization, and RCRA requirements that are not supplanted by authorized state requirements. Idaho continues to have enforcement responsibilities under its state hazardous waste management program for violations of this program, but the EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, 42 U.S.C. 6927, 6928, 6934 and 6973, and any other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions, which includes, among others, the authority to:

    • Conduct inspections;

    • Require monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports;

    • Enforce RCRA requirements;

    • Suspend, terminate, modify or revoke permits; and

    • Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions.

    This final action authorizing these revisions will not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Idaho will be authorized are already effective under state law and are not changed by the act of authorization.

    D. What rules are we authorizing with this action?

    On February 11, 2015, Idaho submitted a program revision application to the EPA requesting authorization for all delegable Federal hazardous waste regulations codified as of July 1, 2012, incorporated by reference in IDAPA 58.01.05.000, et seq, which were adopted and effective in the State of Idaho on April 4, 2013. This authorization revision request includes the following federal rules for which Idaho is being authorized for the first time: Removal of Saccharin and its Salts from the Lists of Hazardous Constituents, Hazardous Wastes, and Hazardous Substances, 75 FR 78918, December 17, 2010; Technical Corrections to the Academics Lab Rule, 75 FR 79304, December 20, 2010; Revisions to the Treatment Standards for Carbamate Wastes, 76 FR 34147, June, 13, 2011; Hazardous Waste Manifest Printing Specifications Corrections, 76 FR 36363, June 22, 2011; and Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications Rule, 77 FR 22229, April 13, 2012. The EPA is authorizing the state's hazardous waste program in its entirety through July 1, 2013. There were no final federal RCRA hazardous waste regulations promulgated by the EPA from July 1, 2012 to July 1, 2013.

    E. Where are the revised state rules different from the Federal rules?

    Under RCRA Section 3009, the EPA may not authorize state law that is less stringent than the Federal program. Any state law that is less stringent does not supplant the Federal regulations. State law that is broader in scope than the Federal program requirements is not authorized. State law that is equivalent to, and state law that is more stringent than, the Federal program may be authorized, in which case those provisions are enforceable by the EPA. This section discusses certain rules where the EPA has made the finding that Idaho's program is more stringent and will be authorized, and discusses certain portions of the Federal program that are not delegable to the State because of the Federal government's special role in foreign policy matters and because of national concerns that arise with certain decisions.

    The EPA does not authorize states to administer Federal import and export functions in any section of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Even though states do not receive authorization to administer the Federal government's import and export functions, found in 40 CFR part 262, subparts E, F and H, state programs are required to adopt the Federal import and export provisions to maintain their equivalency with the Federal program. Idaho amended its import and export laws to include the Federal rule on Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Requirements; Export Shipments of Spend Lead-Acid Batteries (75 FR 1236, January 8, 2010). The State's rule is found at IDAPA 58.01.05.006. The EPA will continue to implement those requirements directly through the RCRA regulations.

    The EPA has found that Idaho's Emergency Notification Requirements (IDAPA 58.01.05.006.02), are more stringent than the Federal program. This is because the State's regulations require that the State Communications Center be contacted along with the Federal Center. The EPA has found the State's statutory requirement requiring hazardous waste generators and commercial hazardous waste disposal facilities to file annual hazardous waste generation reports, Idaho Code § 39-4411(4) and 39-4411(5), to be more stringent than the Federal program. As the EPA can authorize rules that are determined to be more stringent than the Federal program, these requirements are authorized.

    F. Who handles permits after the authorization takes effect?

    Idaho will continue to issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and administer the permits it issues. If the EPA issued permits prior to authorizing Idaho for these revisions, these permits would continue in force until the effective date of the State's issuance or denial of a state hazardous waste permit, at which time the EPA would modify the existing EPA permit to expire at an earlier date, terminate the existing EPA permit for cause, or allow the existing EPA permit to otherwise expire by its terms, except for those facilities located in Indian Country. The EPA will not issue new permits or new portions of permits for provisions for which Idaho is authorized after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Idaho is not yet authorized.

    G. How does this action affect Indian country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in Idaho?

    Idaho is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Indian country includes:

    1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations within or abutting the State of Idaho;

    2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and

    3. Any other land, whether on or off an Indian reservation, that qualifies as Indian country.

    Therefore, this action has no effect on Indian country. The EPA will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program on these lands.

    H. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule revises the State of Idaho's authorized hazardous waste management program pursuant to Section 3006 of RCRA and imposes no requirements other than those currently imposed by state law. This final rule complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:

    1. Executive Order 12866 and 13563

    This action authorizes revisions to the federally approved hazardous waste program in Idaho. This type of action is exempt from review under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

    2. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This final rule does not establish or modify any information or recordkeeping requirements for the regulated community.

    3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires Federal agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business, as codified in the Small Business Size Regulations at 13 CFR part 121; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The EPA has determined that this action will not have a significant impact on small entities because the final rule will only have the effect of authorizing existing requirements under state law and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. After considering the economic impacts of this action, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This action imposes no new enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of Section 203 of the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small government entities.

    5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This final rule authorizes existing state rules. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed action from state and local officials but did not receive any comments.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive order 13175, because the EPA retains its authority over Indian Country and does not authorize the state to implement its authorized program in Indian Country within the state's boundaries. Thus, the EPA has determined that Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule. The EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed rule from tribal officials and received no comments.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it approves a state program and is authorizing existing state rules.

    8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined under Executive Order 12866.

    9. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through the OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

    EPA has determined that this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This action authorizes existing state rules which are equivalent to, and no less stringent than existing federal requirements.

    11. Congressional Review Act

    Congressional Review Act (CRA), 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. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the US Senate, the US 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). This rule will be effective September 15, 2015.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:

    This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: August 11, 2015. Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20726 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1994-0009; FRL-9932-77-Region 4] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the National Southwire Aluminum (NSA) Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 is publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the National Southwire Aluminum (NSA) Superfund Site (Site), located in Hawesville, Hancock County, Kentucky, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published by the EPA with the concurrence of the State of Kentucky, through the Kentucky Division of Waste Management (KDWM), because the EPA has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

    DATES:

    This direct final deletion is effective October 5, 2015 unless the EPA receives adverse comments by September 21, 2015. If adverse comments are received, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that the deletion will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1994-0009, by one of the following methods:

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

     Email: [email protected].

     Fax: 404 562-8788.

     Mail: Michael Townsend, Remedial Project Manager—Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, GA 30303.

     Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, GA 30303. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1994-0009. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

    Hancock County Public Library

    1210 Madison Street, Hawesville, KY 42351. Hours: MTWF 8:30 to 4:30, Thursday 8:30 to 7:00, Saturday 8:30 to 12:00.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Townsend, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, GA 30303; [email protected] or (404) 562-8813.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Site Deletion V. Deletion Action I. Introduction

    The EPA Region 4 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of the National Southwire Aluminum (Site), from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which the EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. The EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial act ions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.

    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that the EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the National Southwire Aluminum Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses the EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

    II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), the EPA will consider, in consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, the EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. The EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

    III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:

    (1) The EPA consulted with the state of Kentucky prior to developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete co-published today in the “Proposed Rules” section of the Federal Register.

    (2) The EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their publication today, and the state, through the Kentucky Division of Waste Management (KDWM), has concurred on the deletion of the Site from the NPL.

    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete is being published in the Hancock County Clarion. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.

    (4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this deletion action, the EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments already received.

    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter the EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist the EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

    IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides the EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL:

    1. Site Background and History

    The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) EPA ID Number of the NSA Site is KYD049062375. The Site is an active aluminum reduction facility located in Hancock County, Kentucky, a sparsely populated area on the south bank of the Ohio River. The Site is located 4 miles northwest of the town of Hawesville and across the Ohio River from the Indiana cities of Cannelton and Tell City. The land surface is characterized by low relief and lies approximately 40 feet above the local normal water level of the Ohio River.

    The facility area, including adjacent agricultural land, is 1,100 acres. The aluminum reduction activities take place in a 475-acre area located to the east of State Route 334 and to the north of State Route 3543. Public access to the Site is restricted by a chain-link fence. In addition, access to and from the plant area is controlled by a guardhouse located at the State Route 3543 entrance. Southwire operated the facility from 1969 to 2001. In April 2001, Southwire transferred ownership of the facility and the majority of the former NSA property to Century Aluminum of Kentucky, LLC (Century). Century continues to operate the aluminum reduction facility. Southwire retained responsibility for completion of the remedy and also maintains ownership of a small parcel on the northwestern part of the property (referred to as the Southwire Outlot).

    There were two primary historic practices that contributed to the contamination at the Site. These included the removal, replacement and disposal of spent potliners in an uncontrolled manner and the use of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) heat transfer fluids as part of pitch operations. These activities adversely affected the Site soil and groundwater. In 1986, the KDWM performed a preliminary assessment at the Site and identified the presence of cyanide in groundwater. A Site Scoring Investigation was performed by the EPA and completed in 1991. The EPA proposed to add the Site to the NPL in the June 29, 1991 Federal Register. The Site was listed final on the NPL: 27989-27996 Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 103, on May 31, 1994.

    A Non-Time Critical Removal Action (NTCRA) was completed in 1997 at the South Slurry Pond to reduce the migration of fluoride and cyanide to groundwater.

    2. Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The Remedial Investigation (RI) was performed to further characterize the nature and extent of known areas of contamination, to ascertain the presence or absence of any additional areas of concern at the Site, and to describe the fate and transport of the contaminants present.

    The analytical results of the RI/FS indicated the presence of two cyanide contaminated groundwater plumes. The north plume extended eastward from the Potliner Disposal Area to the Ohio River, and contained maximum concentrations of 21 milligrams per Liter (mg/L) total cyanide and 1.5 mg/L free cyanide. The total and free cyanide concentrations decreased at the river to 0.723 mg/L and 0.445 mg/L, respectively. The south plume extended bi-directionally from the area of the Spent Potliner Accumulation Building eastward to the river and southwestward to the plant's industrial water supply wells. Total cyanide levels were 0.142 mg/L or less, while free cyanide levels in groundwater sampled from wells near the river were 0.02 mg/L or less. The RI/FS also reported the presence of fluoride and heavy metals in groundwater. The RI/FS indicated that fluoride mobility was naturally limited by precipitation of calcium fluoride. The heavy metals identified in groundwater were addressed by the Record of Decision (ROD), and the EPA determined that it seemed unlikely that the expenditure of resources on an area-wide sampling and cleanup effort would bring a measurable improvement to ecological risk with regard to metals.

    The analytical results of the RI/FS also indicated the presence of PCBs and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Site soils. These constituents were generally identified in carbon and/or pitch handling areas at the Site. Concentrations of PCBs were as high as 2,800 milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg) in the subsurface soil at the Green Carbon pitch handling areas where spills occurred. Low concentrations of PCBs (<50 mg/Kg) were also identified in a few other isolated areas of the Site, such as the Refractory Brick Disposal Areas (RBDAs). Detailed information regarding the findings of the RI/FS activities can be found in the 1997 Remedial Investigation Report and the 1998 Feasibility Study Report.

    3. Selected Remedy

    The ROD identified seven (7) areas of concern based on the results of the RI/FS, the Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA) and the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA). These focus areas included the following:

    (1) Green Carbon PCB Spill Area (2) RBDAs (3) Taylors Wash Landfill (4) Drum Storage Area (5) PCB Soil Stockpile Area (6) Site-wide Groundwater (7) South Slurry Pond

    The remedial action objectives (RAOs) presented in the ROD for the seven (7) focus areas, consisted of the following:

    Minimize direct contact by Site workers and the public with soil containing excessive levels of PCBs,

    Minimize direct contact by Site workers and the public with soil containing excessive levels of PAH compounds,

    Minimize transport of contaminated soil by erosion to water courses, including the Ohio River,

    Minimize potential leaching of total PCBs to Site groundwater from areas of high concentrations,

    Remediate groundwater contaminated with elevated levels of cyanide and fluoride, and

    Prevent deterioration of the Old South Slurry Pond containment system.

    The NTCRA at the South Slurry Pond was conducted to reduce the migration of fluoride and cyanide to groundwater. Groundwater with elevated levels of fluoride is naturally limited by the precipitation of calcium fluoride. Groundwater with elevated levels of cyanide was treated at the OU1 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System (GETS).

    The ROD presented the selected remedy to achieve these RAOs at each of the seven (7) focus areas. These seven (7) focus areas and the selected remedy presented in the ROD for each area is as follows:

    Green Carbon PCB Spill Area (Central Plant)

    Land-use and groundwater-use deed restrictions; surface and subsurface “hot spot” removal to off-site secure landfill; rerouting utilities, where necessary; installation of a low-permeability multimedia cap; operational controls to limit physical contact; monitoring of groundwater for PCBs; material with lower-level PCB contamination disposed under the new Taylors Wash Landfill cap and cover.

    RBDAs (West of State Route 334)

    Land-use and groundwater-use deed restrictions; install soil erosion cap, establish a grass cover, and install fencing with warning signs; remove layer of sediment from lengths of the Drainage Ditch and Muddy Gut Tributary and dispose under the new Taylors Wash Landfill cap and cover or dispose off-site with other PCB soils.

    Taylors Wash Landfill (Eastern Plant)

    Deed restrictions; collection and treatment of leachate utilizing a new force main from the Landfill to the existing groundwater treatment plant; install RCRA Subtitle D multi-media cap and cover; install fencing with warning signs.

    Drum Storage Area (Southern Plant)

    Determine PCB and other contaminant of concern (COC) concentrations of `hotspots'; excavate `hot spots' and dispose of contaminated material under the new Taylors Wash Landfill cap; cover excavations with clean fill and appropriate surface treatment.

    PCB Soil Stockpile Area (Eastern Plant)

    Excavate one foot of existing surface soils over the entire Area and dispose under the Taylors Wash Landfill cap after confirming PCB concentrations; install erosion cap over Area and establish grass cover.

    Site-Wide Groundwater

    Impose deed restrictions for groundwater use where not already imposed; continue groundwater extraction and treatment as required by April 14, 1994 Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) Consent Decree (operate and maintain Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System); monitor Site-wide groundwater and Groundwater Treatment System Kentucky Pollution Discharge Elimination System (KPDES) discharge; investigate soils under Spent Potliner Accumulation Building.

    South Slurry Pond (Northern Plant)

    Maintain existing cap and cover; impose land-use deed restrictions for all four (4) ponds; monitor groundwater as a part of the Site-wide groundwater monitoring.

    The ROD was completed in July 2000, the SOW was completed in November 2000 and the Consent Decree (CD) was entered in U.S. District Court on March 8, 2004. The initial response activities associated with OU1 and the NTCRA were completed in 1997 before issuance of the ROD. The remedial design activities associated with OU2 commenced following execution of the CD. There are no Amendments or Explanations of Significant Differences to the 2000 ROD.

    4. Response Actions Operable Unit No. 1

    The Interim Record of Decision (IROD) was issued in 1993, and a CD for the interim remedial action activities was executed in 1994. The IROD focused on reducing cyanide in groundwater and is referred to as OU1. The Interim Remedial Action Groundwater Pumping and Treatment System Remedial Design (IRA RD) was completed in 1994. The GETS design included an extraction well network consisting of six total wells installed in the cores of the north and south plume to maximize the withdrawal of cyanide-contaminated groundwater. The groundwater treatment plant was designed to remove iron-complexed cyanide using ferrous precipitation and settling. The treatment process involved five basic steps: cyanide precipitation, cyanide solids removal, ferric iron precipitation, iron solids removal, and dewatering of the combined sludge from the two solids removal steps. The GETS was designed to discharge treated groundwater to the Ohio River under the terms of a KPDES Permit. In addition, the Performance Standards Verification Plan (PSVP) developed as part of the IRA RD included a system of thirty-seven (37) groundwater monitoring wells sampled on a quarterly or annual basis for total and free cyanide.

    The remedial action activities associated with OU1 commenced in 1995, with the startup of the GETS. The GETS operated from 1995 through 2010, when the performance standards for OU1 were met. The GETS collected groundwater from up to six extraction wells operating in the north and/or south plumes at rates of up to 690,000 gallons per month under Kentucky Water Withdrawal Permit No. 1330. Groundwater was treated at the on-site groundwater treatment plant and discharged to the Ohio River in accordance with a KPDES Permit. Effluent from the groundwater treatment plant was monitored bi-weekly in accordance with the permit. The extraction wells were monitored on a monthly basis, and monitoring wells associated with OU1 were monitored on a quarterly or annual basis during GETS operation. The GETS operation and monitoring results have been documented in the Monthly Progress Reports required by the CD. Detailed information regarding the OU1 cleanup activities can primarily be found in the 2011 Remedial Action Report, which includes the 2011 OU1 Performance Standards Verification Report as an attachment.

    Operable Unit No. 2

    The ROD was issued in 2000, and a CD for the remedial action activities was executed in 2004. With regard to OU2, the ROD primarily focused on the removal and management and/or containment of surface and subsurface soils from five specific focus areas contaminated with PCBs. The design criteria established in the ROD followed the self-implementing provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 761.61(a)(4)(i). In summary, the design criteria under TSCA required:

    High-Occupancy Areas: The removal of PCB bulk remediation waste to a level less than 1.0 mg/Kg total PCBs, or removal to a level less than 10.0 mg/Kg total PCBs and covered with a protective soil cap.

    Low-Occupancy Areas: The removal of PCB bulk remediation waste to a level less than or equal to 25 mg/Kg total PCBs, to a level less than or equal to 50 mg/Kg total PCBs if the areas is secured by a fence and marked with signage, or to a level of less than or equal to 100 mg/Kg total PCBs if the area is appropriately capped.

    The plans for meeting the criteria established in the ROD were developed in the Final RD/RA Submittal and approved by the EPA in 2006. The RD/RA was designed to meet the criteria defined above through a series of remedial actions that are further described below.

    The remedial action activities associated with OU2 commenced in 2007, and were substantially complete in 2008, when the performance standards associated with this operable unit were achieved. The remedial action activities were specific to five focus areas and are summarized below:

    Green Carbon PCB Spill Area: The remedial action activities in the Green Carbon Area primarily required the excavation and removal of materials (mainly soils) potentially contaminated with PCBs from depths of 2 to 14 feet. During material removal activities, confirmatory/verification sampling and material characterization activities were conducted in accordance with the approved RD/RA. Following material characterization, the removed materials were staged in the Taylor's Wash Landfill Area and ultimately disposed of either at Taylor's Wash, at a RCRA Subtitle D Landfill or at a TSCA-equivalent disposal facility in accordance with the provisions of the ROD and RD/RA. A multi-layer cap was installed in the deep excavation areas (depths up to 14). Clean fill materials and, ultimately, pavements (concrete or asphalt) were installed above the multi-layer cap. In shallow excavation areas (depths up to 2 feet), the RD/RA included a layer of clean fill materials and/or concrete pavement. The activities were completed in December 2007.

    Drum Storage Area: The remedial action activities in the Drum Storage Area primarily required the excavation of soil materials potentially contaminated with PCBs or PAHs to depths of up to 2 feet. During material removal activities, confirmatory/verification sampling and material characterization activities were conducted in accordance with the approved RD/RA. Following material characterization, the removed materials were staged in the Taylor's Wash Landfill Area and ultimately disposed of either at Taylor's Wash, at a RCRA Subtitle D Landfill or at a TSCA-equivalent disposal facility in accordance with the provisions of the ROD and RD/RA. Clean fill materials were placed in the excavation areas. The activities were completed in September 2007.

    Refractory Brick Disposal Areas: The cleanup activities in the RBDAs primarily required the regrading of existing materials and the installation of a 2-foot soil cap with a minimum of one percent slope. In addition, the preliminary design activities conducted in 2005 identified wetlands in the vicinity of the RBDAs. The RD/RA included provisions to minimize disturbance to wetlands in the vicinity of the RBDAs and to restore the areas following wetlands mitigation principles. The activities were completed in November 2007.

    PCB Soil Stockpile Area: The cleanup activities at the PCB Soil Stockpile Area primarily required the installation of a 2-foot soil cap with a minimum of one percent slope. The activities were completed in September 2007.

    Taylor's Wash Landfill: The cleanup activities at the Taylor's Wash Landfill primarily consisted of the regrading of excavated soils from the Green Carbon and Drum Storage Areas with PCB concentrations of less than 25 mg/Kg. Following the regrading activities, the ROD required the installation of a multi-layer cap and vegetative cover system. These activities were completed in July 2008. In addition, as the ROD required, activities related to the collection and treatment of leachate from the landfill for a period of one year, or until other established criteria had been met, were implemented. Leachate from the landfill was pre-treated adjacent to the Taylor's Wash Landfill area and treated at the OU1 groundwater treatment plant. The leachate treatment activities were completed in August 2009.

    In addition to the cleanup activities described above, the ROD also required the installation of fencing at the Taylor's Wash Landfill and the RBDAs, and the installation of warning signs to prevent digging or excavation at the Green Carbon Area, RBDAs, PCB Soil Stockpile Area and Taylor's Wash Landfill. These activities were completed by August 2008. Detailed information regarding the OU2 cleanup activities can be found in the 2011 Remedial Action Report.

    The EPA and the KDWM have indicated that all remedial action construction activities, including the implementation of institutional controls, were performed in compliance with the ROD and in accordance with the Final Remedial Design (RD). In 2013, the EPA prepared a Final Close Out Report to document the completion of the remedial action activities.

    5. Cleanup Goals Demonstration of Cleanup Activity Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)

    The construction and operation and maintenance QA/QC requirements related to the Site are included as appendices to the 2006 RD/RA that encompassed all areas of concern and was approved by the EPA in June 2006. The RD/RA included the Construction Quality Assurance Project Plan (specific to OU2) and the Field Sampling Plan (inclusive of OU1 and OU2). These work controlling documents are consistent with the requirements of the IROD and ROD. Southwire retained URS to serve in the role of the Quality Assurance firm and to document that the QA/QC protocol was followed.

    A significant number of QA/QC reports were developed during implementation of cleanup activities at both OU1 and OU2. The reports consisted of, but were not limited to, material certifications, air monitoring data, groundwater monitoring and extraction well analytical data, treatment system discharge analytical data, soil confirmation data, liner testing results, waste characterization data, Site surveys and field observations. As demonstrated by the reports, the requirements and standards of performance for the various remedy components have been met and sampling and analysis protocol has been followed.

    The QA/QC information and activities described above have been documented in the Monthly Progress Reports for the Site, the 2011 Remedial Action Report and the 2013 Final Close-Out Report.

    6. Operation and Maintenance Summary of Operation and Maintenance Required

    A detailed description of the required Operations and Maintenance Manual (O&M) activities specific to the Site can be found in the 2008 Operations and Maintenance Manual for OU1, OU2 and South Slurry Pond Remedial Action Activities (O&M Manual). The manual was developed to be inclusive of all Superfund-related O&M activities required at the Site and will be updated as needed.

    The O&M activities for OU1 were related to groundwater monitoring and operation of the GETS. The activities related to OU1 were completed in May 2010. The O&M activities for South Slurry Pond are related to groundwater monitoring and inspection of the cap/cover system. The South Slurry Pond activities are anticipated to continue for a total of thirty (30) years, or through 2027. The O&M activities for OU2 are primarily related to inspection of the installed cap and/or cover systems. These activities related to OU2 are anticipated to continue for a total of thirty (30) years, or through 2038.

    The O&M activities for OU2 and the South Slurry Pond are ongoing and consist primarily of field inspection/observation activities and groundwater monitoring. The following list is a general overview of the O&M activities at the Site.

    Inspect vegetative/erosion/pavement caps for erosion, rutting, settlement, ponding or other significant damage.

    Inspect fencing, gates and locks for significant breaches and operability.

    Observe signage is in required locations and visible.

    Observe stormwater systems and confirm operating without restrictions, significant silt buildup, debris, etc.

    Observe monitoring well casings and locks for damage.

    Review groundwater monitoring records to confirm that the appropriate monitoring has been conducted.

    Continued groundwater monitoring associated with the south slurry pond.

    The O&M activities will continue to be implemented by Southwire and an annual O&M Monitoring Report for the Site will be prepared in accordance with the O&M Manual. More detailed information related to the required O&M at the Site can be found in the O&M Manual.

    Institutional Controls

    The ROD required the development of Institutional Controls in the form of Environmental Covenants to restrict groundwater and land use at the Site. Two Environmental Covenants were prepared for the Site, one for Century's property and one for the Out lot containing the former waste impoundments owned by Southwire. These Environmental Covenants were developed, approved by the EPA and KDWM\ and recorded at the Hancock County Court in November 2010. The Environmental Covenants include the following provisions, as required by the ROD:

    No residential use of the Site,

    No potable water use of groundwater at the Site, and

    No soil disturbance, cap disturbance or construction is permitted within the identified focus areas without first obtaining approval from the EPA and KDWM.

    The Institutional Controls are maintained and enforced by the current Site owners, Southwire and Century.

    7. Five-Year Reviews

    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., and the EPA's Five-Year Review Guidance, and because this remedy will result in hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remaining on-site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a statutory review must be conducted every five years after initiation of remedial activities at the Site. The objective of the Five-Year Review is to ensure that the remedy continues to be protective of human health and the environment. The First Five-Year Review was completed in 2001, and the Second Five-Year Review was completed in 2006. The Third-Five Year Review was signed on September 1, 2011.

    The protectiveness statement from the Third Five-Year Review indicated that all remedial activities at the Site are complete, the cleanup requirements have been met and the remedial action is protective of human health and the environment. The Fourth Five-Year Review is required to be completed on or before September 1, 2016.

    8. Community Involvement

    As part of preparation for the IROD, a public comment period was held from January 7, 1993 to February 7, 1993, and comment response was included in the IROD.

    As part of preparation for the ROD, a public comment period was held from July 28, 1999 to August 28, 1999 and comment response was included in the ROD.

    As part of the preparation for the Five-Year Review—a public notice was published in the Hancock County Clarion (local newspaper), on May 5, 2011, announcing the commencement of the Five-Year Review process for the National Southwire Aluminum Superfund Site inviting community participation. In addition, the Five-Year Review report will be made available to the public once it has been finalized.

    9. Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    The NSA Site meets all of the site completion requirements specified in 40 CFR 400.325(e) and the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9320.2-22, Close Out Procedures for NPL Sites. Specifically, the QA/QC information for the Site indicates that the ROD specified performance standards and remedial action objectives have been achieved at all identified areas of concern. Therefore, the implemented remedy achieves the degree of cleanup and protection specified in the ROD, and no further Superfund response is needed at the Site to be protective of human health and the environment. The selected remedial and removal actions and associated cleanup goals are consistent with EPA policy and guidance. The O&M activities will be continued by Southwire to ensure continued protectiveness of the remedy.

    V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Kentucky through the Kentucky Division of Waste Management, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews have been completed. Therefore, the EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.

    Because the EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, the EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective October 5, 2015 unless the EPA receives adverse comments by September 21, 2015. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and it will not take effect. The EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: August 6, 2015. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

    PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Appendix B to Part 300—[Amended] 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing “KY”, “National Southwire Aluminum Co”, “Hawesville”.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20611 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    80 162 Friday, August 21, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 52 [Document Number AMS-FV-14-0087, FV-15-329] United States Standards for Grades of Processed Raisins AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposes to revise the United States Standards for Grades of Processed Raisins. AMS is proposing to remove five references to the term “midget” throughout the standards. These changes would modernize and clarify the standards by removing dual terminology for the same requirement.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before October 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments to the Standardization Branch, Specialty Crops Inspection Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Training and Development Center, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22406; fax: (540) 361-1199, or on the Web at: www.regulations.gov. Comments should reference the dates and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours. All comments submitted in response to this notice will be included in the public record and will be made available to the public and can be viewed as submitted, including any personal information that you provide, on the Internet via http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lindsay H. Mitchell at the address above, or at phone (540) 361-1120; fax (540) 361-1199; or, email [email protected] Copies of the proposed U.S. Standards for Grades of Processed Raisins are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Copies of the current U.S. Standards for Grades of Processed Raisins are available on the Specialty Crops Inspection Division Web site at www.ams.usda.gov/scihome.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The proposed changes remove the dual nomenclature terminology “small or midget” for the same requirement from the United States Standards for Grades of Processed Raisins. These revisions also affect the grade requirements under the marketing order, 7 CFR parts 989, issued under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. 601-674) and applicable imports.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

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

    Executive Order 13175

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

    Executive Order 12988

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. There are no administrative procedures that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Act

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

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

    There are approximately 3,000 California raisin producers and 28 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. The Small Business Administration defines small agricultural producers as those with annual receipts less than $750,000, and defines small agricultural service firms as those with annual receipts less than $7,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

    Based on shipment data and other information provided by the Raisin Administrative Committee (RAC), which administers the federal marketing order for raisins produced from grapes grown in California, a majority of producers and approximately 18 handlers of California raisins may be classified as small entities. This action should not have any impact on handlers' or growers' benefits or costs.

    The action would clarify AMS grade standards by eliminating the use of the term “midget,” while consistently using the term “small” for raisins graded in that category. The industry has used the two grade terms interchangeably for years. The proposed grade standards would be applied uniformly by all handlers.

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this rule would not change the information collection and recordkeeping requirements previously approved, and would impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping burden on domestic producers, first handlers, and importers of processed raisins.

    USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule. The rule will impact marketing programs that regulate the handling of processed raisins under 7 CFR part 989. Raisins under a marketing order have to meet certain requirements set forth in the grade standards. In addition, raisins are subject to section 8e import requirements under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), which requires imported raisins to meet grade, size, and quality under the applicable marketing order (7 CFR part 999).

    Background

    AMS continually reviews all fruit and vegetable grade standards to ensure their usefulness in the industry, and to modernize language and remove duplicative terminology. On May 13, 2013, AMS received a petition from the Little People of America stating that they “are trying to raise awareness around and eliminate the use of the word midget.” The petition further stated that, “Though the use of the word midget by the USDA when classifying certain food products is benign, Little People of America, and the dwarfism community, hopes that the USDA would consider phasing out the term midget.”

    AMS determined that the processed raisin grade standard contained “small or midget” terminology for the same requirement. Before developing these proposed revisions, AMS solicited comments and suggestions about the grade standards from the RAC. The RAC represents the entire California raisin industry; no other state produces raisins commercially. On August 14, 2014, the RAC approved the removal of the term midget from the standards.

    AMS is proposing to remove five references to the term “midget” in the following sections: 52.1845(b) and (c), 52.1850(a)(2) and (a)(3), and Table I. The proposed revisions would modernize and help clarify the language of the standard by removing dual terminology for the same requirement.

    The proposed rule provides a 60-day period during which interested parties may comment on the revisions to the standard.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 52

    Food grades and standards, Food labeling, Frozen foods, Fruit juices, Fruits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vegetables.

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 52 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.

    2. In § 52.1845, paragraphs (b) and (c) are revised to read as follows:
    § 52.1845 [Amended]

    (b) Small size raisins means that 95 percent, by weight, of all the raisins will pass through round perforations 24/64-inch in diameter, and not less than 70 percent, by weight, of all raisins will pass through round perforations 22/64-inch in diameter.

    (c) Mixed size raisins means a mixture which does not meet either the requirements for “select” size; or for “small” size.

    3. In § 52.1846, Table I, is amended, under “Substandard Development and Undeveloped” by revising the entry for “small size” to read as follows:
    § 52.1846 Grades of seedless raisins. Table I *         *         *         *         *         *         * Defects U.S. Grade A U.S. Grade B U.S. Grade C *         *         *         *         *         *         * Substandard Development and Undeveloped Total Total Total *         *         *         *         *         *         * Small size 2 3 5 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    4. In § 52.1850, paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) are revised to read as follows:
    § 52.1850 [Amended]

    (a) * * *

    (2) Small size raisins means that all of the raisins will pass through round perforations 34/64-inch in diameter and not less than 90 percent, by weight, of all the raisins will pass through round perforations 22/64-inch in diameter.

    (3) Mixed size raisins means a mixture does not meet either the requirements for “select” size or for “small” size.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20391 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 20 [Docket Nos. PRM-20-28, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30; NRC-2015-0057] Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing and request for comment; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 23, 2015, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested public comment on three petitions for rulemaking (PRM) requesting that the NRC amend its “Standards for Protection Against Radiation” regulations and change the basis of those regulations from the linear no-threshold model of radiation protection to the radiation hormesis model. The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on September 8, 2015. The NRC is extending the public comment period to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the document published on June 23, 2015, at 80 FR 35870, is extended. Comments should be filed no later than November 19, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0057. 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.

    Email comments to: [email protected] If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677.

    Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101.

    Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

    Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.

    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:

    Solomon Sahle, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3781, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0057 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-2015-0057.

    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]

    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-2015-0057 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 into ADAMS.

    II. Discussion

    On June 23, 2015, the NRC requested public comment on three PRMs, PRM-20-28, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30, requesting that the NRC amend its “Standards for Protection Against Radiation” regulations and change the basis of those regulations from the linear no-threshold model of radiation protection to the radiation hormesis model. The NRC is examining the issues raised in these PRMs to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking.

    The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on September 8, 2015. The NRC is extending the public comment period on this document until November 19, 2015, to allow more time for members of the public to submit their comments.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of August, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20722 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY 12 CFR Part 1238 RIN 2590-AA74 Proposed Amendments to the Stress Test Rule AGENCY:

    Federal Housing Finance Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking with request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is proposing amendments to its stress testing rule adopted in 2013 to implement section 165(i) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The amendments would modify the start date of the stress test cycles from October 1 of a calendar year to January 1 of the following calendar year. The amendments would also modify the dates for FHFA to issue scenarios for the upcoming cycle, the dates for the regulated entities to report the results of their stress tests to FHFA, and the dates for the regulated entities to publicly disclose a summary of their stress test results for the severely adverse scenario. These amendments would align FHFA's rule with rules adopted by other financial institution regulators that implement the Dodd-Frank stress testing requirements.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit your comments, identified by regulatory identification number (RIN) 2590-AA74, by any of the following methods:

    Agency Web site: www.fhfa.gov/open-for-comment-or-input.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. If you submit your comment to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, please also send it by email to FHFA at [email protected] to ensure timely receipt by the agency. Please include “RIN 2590-AA74” in the subject line of the message.

    Hand Delivered/Courier: The hand delivery address is: Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel, Attention: Comments/RIN 2590-AA74, Federal Housing Finance Agency, Eighth Floor, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024. Deliver the package to the Seventh Street entrance Guard Desk, First Floor, on business days between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.

    U.S. Mail, United Parcel Service, Federal Express or Other Mail Service: The mailing address for comments is: Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel, Attention: Comments/RIN 2590-AA74, Federal Housing Finance Agency, Eighth Floor, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024.

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on submission and posting of comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Naa Awaa Tagoe, Senior Associate Director, Office of Financial Analysis, Modeling and Simulations, (202) 649-3140, [email protected]; Stefan Szilagyi, Examination Manager, FHLBank Modeling, FHLBank Risk Modeling Branch (202) 649-3515, [email protected]; Karen Heidel, Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel, (202) 649-3073, [email protected]; or Mark D. Laponsky, Deputy General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, (202) 649-3054, [email protected] The telephone number for the Telecommunications Device for the Hearing Impaired is (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Comments

    FHFA invites comment on all aspects of the proposed amendments and will take all comments into consideration before adopting amendments through a final rule. Copies of all comments received will be posted without change on the FHFA Web site at http://www.fhfa.gov, and will include any personal information you provide, such as your name, address, email address, and telephone number. In addition, copies of all comments received will be available for examination by the public on business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Eighth Floor, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024. To make an appointment to inspect comments, please call the Office of General Counsel at (202) 649-3804.

    II. Background

    FHFA is an independent agency of the federal government established to regulate and oversee the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (collectively, the Enterprises), and the Federal Home Loan Banks (Bank(s)) (collectively, the regulated entities).1 FHFA is the primary federal financial regulator of each regulated entity. FHFA's regulatory mission is to ensure, among other things, that each of the regulated entities “operates in a safe and sound manner” and that their “operations and activities . . . foster liquid, efficient, competitive, and resilient national housing finance markets.” 2

    1 Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, 12 U.S.C. 4501, et seq.

    2 12 U.S.C. 4513(a)(1)(B).

    On September 26, 2013, FHFA published a final rule implementing section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act),3 which requires certain financial companies with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion to conduct annual stress tests to determine whether the companies have the capital necessary to absorb losses as a result of adverse economic conditions. Each regulated entity is covered by this Dodd-Frank Act requirement. FHFA's regulation, located at 12 CFR part 1238, requires each regulated entity to conduct an annual stress test based on scenarios provided by FHFA and consistent with FHFA prescribed methodologies and practices. The annual stress test period begins October 1 of one year and ends September 30 of the next year, which coincides with the testing period established by Federal Reserve Board (FRB) regulations for its Dodd-Frank Act stress testing.

    3 78 FR 59219 (September 26, 2013).

    FHFA's regulation requires that the agency issue to the regulated entities stress test scenarios that are generally consistent with and comparable to those developed by the FRB not later than 15 days after the FRB publishes its scenarios.4 Each regulated entity is required to report the stress test results to FHFA and the FRB and publicly disclose a summary of the stress test results for the severely adverse scenario. The reporting date for the Enterprises is on or before February 5, and for the Banks it is on or before April 30.5 Each Enterprise must publicly disclose a summary of its results from the severely adverse scenario of the stress test not earlier than April 15 and not later than April 30.6 The Banks are required to disclose their summaries not earlier than July 15 and not later than July 30.7 These dates were established by measuring forward from the corresponding dates in the FRB regulation, after accounting for differences in the business models of the regulated entities from those of the institutions regulated by the FRB.

    4 12 CFR 1238.3(b).

    5 12 CFR 1238.5(a).

    6 12 CFR 1238.7(a).

    7 12 CFR 1238.7(a).

    On October 27, 2014, the FRB published a final rule amending several dates relevant to its rule and from which FHFA measured to determine appropriate dates for stress testing cycles, scenario issuance, test reporting, and summary test disclosures.8 The FRB's new rule establishes January 1 of each year as the beginning of the stress testing cycle (changed from October 1) and the following December 31 as the date as of which the regulated entity is to identify and use data for testing.9 The new FRB rule requires large bank holding companies with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets to report their test results not later than April 5 10 and publicly disclose their summary results by mid-July.11 The new FRB rule also requires U.S. banking institutions with total consolidated assets over $10 billion and less than $50 billion to report their test results by July 31 and publicly disclose their results during the period beginning October 15 and ending October 31.12 Since FHFA measured several of its regulatory dates from corresponding dates in the FRB regulation, FHFA now needs to amend its regulation to maintain consistency and comparability in stress testing regimes.

    8 79 FR 64025 (October 27, 2014), codified at 12 CFR part 252.

    9 12 CFR 252.12(t)(2), See 79 FR 64046.

    10 12 CFR 252.57(a)(1), See 79 FR 64054.

    11 12 CFR 252.58(a)(1)(i), requires companies to publicly disclose a summary of the stress test results within 15 calendar days after the FRB discloses the results of its supervisory stress test. The FRB will publicly disclose a summary of the supervisory stress test results by June 30 pursuant to 12 CFR 252.46(b)(1). See 79 FR 64054.

    12 12 CFR 252.17(a)(3)(iii), See 79 FR 64049.

    As a result of FHFA's experience through two stress test cycles, these amendments also propose to lengthen the time between FRB's issuance of its scenarios and FHFA's issuance. The existing 15 day period after FRB's issuance has proven to be too short to allow appropriate analysis, stakeholder input, and adjustment of the scenarios to account for the differences in business models between the Enterprises and Banks as compared with other regulated institutions conducting Dodd-Frank stress tests under their regulators' rules. Consequently, FHFA proposes to extend the time by which it is required to issue its scenarios to 30 calendar days following FRB's issuance of its final element of the supervisory scenarios.

    III. Analysis of Proposed Rule

    The purpose of the proposed rule is to realign FHFA's stress testing rule with those of the FRB, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) by modifying: (1) The start date of the stress test cycles from October 1 of a calendar year to January 1 of the following calendar year; (2) the dates regulated entities are required to report stress test results to FHFA and the FRB; (3) the dates by which the regulated entities are required to publicly disclose summaries of the results for the severely adverse scenario; and (4) the date by which FHFA is required to issue stress testing scenarios to its regulated entities.

    The proposed amendments would shift the start of the stress test cycles, as well as the related deadline for submission of results, by one calendar quarter. As a result of the proposed shift, the stress test cycles would begin on January 1, based on data as of December 31 of the preceding calendar year. This cycle matches the cycle recently adopted by the other Dodd-Frank stress testing regulators. Each Enterprise would be required to report the results of its stress test to FHFA and the FRB by May 20, and publicly disclose a summary of the stress test results not earlier than August 1 and not later than August 15 of each year. This change mirrors the FRB's new requirement for large bank holding companies with over $50 billion in total consolidated assets. The changes required to maintain alignment with the FRB also result in shifting the reporting deadline for the Banks by four months, requiring submission of results to FHFA and FRB on or before August 31 and public disclosure not earlier than November 15 and not later than November 30 of each year.

    To maintain consistency with the other Dodd-Frank stress testing regulators, the stress testing cycle shift will take effect beginning on January 1, 2016, for all regulated entities.

    Section 1238.3(b) of the current rule states that: “[n]ot later than 15 days after the FRB publishes its scenarios, FHFA will issue to all regulated entities a description of the baseline, adverse, and severely adverse scenarios that each regulated entity shall use to conduct its annual stress tests under this part.” On October 27, 2014, the FRB changed the publication date by which it must publish its scenarios for the upcoming cycle from November 15 to February 15, for the cycle beginning January 1, 2016 and thereafter.13 The effect of the rule change shifts the date for scenario issuance by approximately three months. FHFA proposes to change § 1238.3(b) to provide additional time for it to analyze and adjust the scenarios it issues to the Enterprises and Banks. The proposed amendment will change the existing fifteen (15) day period in § 1238.3(b) to a thirty (30) day period. Thus, if the FRB issues its scenarios including all elements and assumptions on February 15, under the proposed amendment FHFA would issue its scenarios on or before March 17 (March 16 in a leap year).

    13 12 CFR 252.14(b)(1), See 79 FR 64047.

    IV. Coordination With the FRB and the Federal Insurance Office

    In accordance with section 165(i)(2)(C) of the Dodd-Frank Act, (12 U.S.C. 5365(i)(2)(C)), FHFA has coordinated with both the FRB and the Federal Insurance Office (FIO). On October 27, 2014, the FRB published a final rule covering “bank holding compan[ies] with total consolidated assets of greater than $10 billion but less than $50 billion and savings and loan holding companies and state member banks with total consolidated assets of greater than $10 billion,” 14 and large bank holding companies and non-bank financial companies, also known as “covered companies”; 15 the FDIC issued its final rule on November 21, 2014; 16 and the OCC issued its final rule on December 3, 2014.17 Although FHFA's amended final rule would not be identical to those of the FRB, the FDIC, and the OCC, it is consistent and comparable with them. FHFA consulted with the FRB and FIO before proposing these amendments.

    14 12 CFR part 252, subpart B, See 79 FR 64045.

    15 12 CFR part 252, subpart F, See 79 FR 64051.

    16 79 FR 69365 (November 21, 2014), codified at 12 CFR part 325.

    17 79 FR 71630 (December 3, 2014), codified at 12 CFR part 46.

    V. Differences Between the Banks and the Enterprises

    Section 1313(f) of the Safety and Soundness Act requires the Director to consider the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises whenever promulgating regulations that affect the Banks. In developing this proposed rule, FHFA considered the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises, but also adhered to the statutory mandate that the regulation be “consistent and comparable” with the regulations of the other agencies. In implementing the regulation, FHFA will define scenarios for the regulated entities, bearing in mind the key risk exposures at each regulated entity.

    In the proposed rule, FHFA requires different timeframes for reporting stress test results for the Enterprises versus the Banks. For the Enterprises, FHFA sets the dates for reporting stress test results to the regulator, the FRB, and the public in proximity to similar dates in the other agencies' rules for institutions with over $50 billion in assets. Reporting dates for all the Banks, regardless of size, are set in proximity to similar dates for institutions with less than $50 billion in assets. As a result, the Banks have over three additional months to report results to FHFA, the FRB, and the public.

    VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed rule does not contain any collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.). Therefore, FHFA has not submitted any information to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

    VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The proposed rule applies only to the regulated entities, which do not come within the meaning of small entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (see 5 U.S.C. 601(6)). Therefore, in accordance with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the General Counsel of FHFA certifies that this proposed rule, if promulgated as a final rule, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1238

    Administrative practice and procedure, Capital, Federal Home Loan Banks, Government-sponsored enterprises, Regulated entities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Stress test.

    Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons stated in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 4513, 4526, and 5365(i), FHFA proposes to amend part 1238 of Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 1238—STRESS TESTING OF REGULATED ENTITIES 1. The authority citation for part 1238 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1426; 4513; 4526; 4612; 5365(i).

    2. Amend § 1238.3 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) to read as follows:
    § 1238.3 Annual stress test.

    (a) * * *

    (1) Shall complete an annual stress test of itself based on its data as of December 31 of the preceding calendar year;

    (b) Scenarios provided by FHFA. In conducting its annual stress tests under this section, each regulated entity must use scenarios provided by FHFA, which shall be generally consistent with and comparable to those established by the FRB, that reflect a minimum of three sets of economic and financial conditions, including a baseline, adverse, and severely adverse scenario. Not later than 30 days after the FRB publishes its scenarios, FHFA will issue to all regulated entities a description of the baseline, adverse, and severely adverse scenarios that each regulated entity shall use to conduct its annual stress tests under this part.

    3. Amend § 1238.5 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 1238.5 Required report to FHFA and the FRB of stress test results and related information.

    (a) Report required for stress tests. On or before May 20 of each year, the Enterprises must report the results of the stress tests required under § 1238.3 to FHFA, and to the FRB, in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section; and on or before August 31 of each year, the Banks must report the results of the stress tests required under § 1238.3 to FHFA, and to the FRB, in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section;

    4. Amend § 1238.7 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 1238.7 Publication of results by regulated entities.

    (a) Public disclosure of results required for stress tests of regulated entities. The Enterprises must disclose publicly a summary of the stress test results for the severely adverse scenario not earlier than August 1 and not later than August 15 of each year. Each Bank must disclose publicly a summary of the stress test results for the severely adverse scenario not earlier than November 15 and not later than November 30 of each year. The summary may be published on the regulated entity's Web site or in any other form that is reasonably accessible to the public;

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Melvin L. Watt, Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20613 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8070-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3464; Notice No. 23-15-04-SC] Special Conditions: Cirrus Aircraft Corporation, SF50; Auto Throttle. AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed special conditions.

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes special conditions for the Cirrus Aircraft Corporation Model SF50 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature(s) associated with installation of an Auto Throttle System. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

    DATES:

    Send your comments on or before October 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-3464 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeff Pretz, FAA, Regulations and Policy Branch, ACE-111, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 901 Locust; Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 329-3239; facsimile (816) 329-4090.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

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

    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

    Background

    On September 9, 2008, Cirrus Aircraft Corporation applied for a type certificate for their new Model SF50. On December 11, 2012 Cirrus elected to adjust the certification basis of the SF50 to include 14 CFR part 23 through amendment 62. The SF50 is a low-wing, 7-seat (5 adults and 2 children), pressurized, retractable gear, carbon composite airplane with one turbofan engine mounted partially in the upper aft fuselage. It is constructed largely of carbon and fiberglass composite materials. Like other Cirrus products, the SF50 includes a ballistically deployed airframe parachute. The SF50 has a maximum operating altitude of 28,000 feet and the maximum takeoff weight will be at or below 6,000 pounds with a range at economy cruise of roughly 1,000 nautical miles.

    Current part 23 airworthiness regulations do not contain appropriate safety standards for an Auto Throttle System (ATS) installation; therefore, special conditions are required to establish an acceptable level of safety. Part 25 regulations contain appropriate safety standards for these systems, making the intent for this project to apply the language in § 25.1329 for the auto throttle, while substituting § 23.1309 and § 23.143 in place of the similar part 25 regulations referenced in § 25.1329. In addition, malfunction of the ATS to perform its intended function shall be evaluated per the Loss of Thrust Control (LOTC) criteria established under part 33 for electronic engine controls. An analysis must show that no single failure or malfunction or probable combinations of failures of the ATS will permit the LOTC probability to exceed those established under part 33 for an electronic engine control.

    Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Cirrus must show that the Model SF50 meets the applicable provisions of part 23, as amended by amendments 23-1 through 23-62 thereto.

    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the SF50 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the SF50 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36 and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the Noise Control Act of 1972.

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

    Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The SF50 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: An ATS as part of the automatic flight control system. The ATS utilizes a Garmin “smart” autopilot servo with a physical connection to the throttle quadrant control linkage. The auto throttle may be controlled by the pilot with an optional auto throttle control panel adjacent to the throttle lever. The auto throttle also provides an envelope protection function which does not require installation of the optional control panel.

    Discussion

    Part 23 currently does not sufficiently address auto throttle (also referred to as auto thrust) technology and safety concerns. Therefore, special conditions must be developed and applied to this project to ensure an acceptable level of safety has been obtained. For approval to use the ATS during flight, the SF50 must demonstrate compliance to the intent of the requirements of § 25.1329, applying the appropriate part 23 references to § 23.1309 (to include performing a functional hazard assessment or system safety assessment to determine the applicable Software and Airborne Electronic Hardware assurance levels, and compliance to DO-178C & DO-254, as required) and § 23.143.

    In addition, a malfunction of the ATS to perform its intended function is an LOTC event, and may result in a total loss of thrust control, transients, or uncommanded thrust changes. The classification of the failure condition for an LOTC event on a Class II single-engine aircraft is hazardous for aircraft that stall at or below 61 knots. From publication AC 23.1309-1E, based upon failure probability values shown in Figure 2, an LOTC event would have to meet a probability of failure value not to exceed 1X10−6. In-service data for LOTC in single-engine turbine aircraft shows LOTC events exceed this probability; therefore, part 33 requirements for engine control probabilities will be accepted for the part 23 LOTC requirement.

    The probabilities of failure for an LOTC event on a turbine engine shall not exceed the following (see AC33.28-1 and ANE-1993-33.28TLD-R1 for further guidance):

    1. Average Events per Million Hours: 10 (1X10−05 per hour).

    2. Maximum Events per Million Hours: 100 (1X10−04 per hour).

    Note:

    The maximum events per flight hour are intended for Time Limited Dispatch (TLD) operation where the risk exposure is mitigated by limiting the time in which the aircraft is operated in the degraded condition.

    Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model SF50. Should Cirrus apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

    Conclusion

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

    Authority:

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

    The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Cirrus Aircraft Corporation Model SF50 airplanes.

    1. Certification of auto throttle system under part 23.

    (a) Quick disengagement controls for the auto thrust functions must be provided for each pilot. The auto thrust quick disengagement controls must be located on the thrust control levers. Quick disengagement controls must be readily accessible to each pilot while operating the thrust control levers.

    (b) The effects of a failure of the system to disengage the auto thrust functions when manually commanded by the pilot must be assessed in accordance with the requirements of § 23.1309.

    (c) Engagement or switching of the flight guidance system, a mode, or a sensor may not cause the auto thrust system to affect a transient response that alters the airplane's flight path any greater than a minor transient, as defined in paragraph (l)(1) of this section.

    (d) Under normal conditions, the disengagement of any automatic control function of a flight guidance system may not cause a transient response of the airplane's flight path any greater than a minor transient.

    (e) Under rare normal and non-normal conditions, disengagement of any automatic control function of a flight guidance system may not result in a transient any greater than a significant transient, as defined in paragraph (l)(2) of this section.

    (f) The function and direction of motion of each command reference control, such as heading select or vertical speed, must be plainly indicated on, or adjacent to, each control if necessary to prevent inappropriate use or confusion.

    (g) Under any condition of flight appropriate to its use, the flight guidance system may not produce hazardous loads on the airplane, nor create hazardous deviations in the flight path. This applies to both fault-free operation and in the event of a malfunction, and assumes that the pilot begins corrective action within a reasonable period of time.

    (h) When the flight guidance system is in use, a means must be provided to avoid excursions beyond an acceptable margin from the speed range of the normal flight envelope. If the airplane experiences an excursion outside this range, a means must be provided to prevent the flight guidance system from providing guidance or control to an unsafe speed.

    (i) The flight guidance system functions, controls, indications, and alerts must be designed to minimize flight crew errors and confusion concerning the behavior and operation of the flight guidance system. Means must be provided to indicate the current mode of operation, including any armed modes, transitions, and reversions. Selector switch position is not an acceptable means of indication. The controls and indications must be grouped and presented in a logical and consistent manner. The indications must be visible to each pilot under all expected lighting conditions.

    (j) Following disengagement of the auto thrust function, a caution (visual and auditory) must be provided to each pilot.

    (k) During auto thrust operation, it must be possible for the flight crew to move the thrust levers without requiring excessive force. The auto thrust may not create a potential hazard when the flight crew applies an override force to the thrust levers.

    (l) For purposes of this section, a transient is a disturbance in the control or flight path of the airplane that is not consistent with response to flight crew inputs or environmental conditions.

    (1) A minor transient would not significantly reduce safety margins and would involve flight crew actions that are well within their capabilities. A minor transient may involve a slight increase in flight crew workload or some physical discomfort to passengers or cabin crew.

    (2) A significant transient may lead to a significant reduction in safety margins, an increase in flight crew workload, discomfort to the flight crew, or physical distress to the passengers or cabin crew, possibly including non-fatal injuries. Significant transients do not require, in order to remain within or recover to the normal flight envelope, any of the following:

    i. Exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength.

    ii. Forces applied by the pilot which are greater than those specified in § 23.143(c).

    iii. Accelerations or attitudes in the airplane that might result in further hazard to secured or non-secured occupants.

    Cirrus must also demonstrate, through tests and analysis, that no single failure or malfunction or probable combinations of failures of the auto thrust system components results in the probability for LOTC, or un-commanded thrust changes and transients that result in an LOTC event, to exceed the following:

    1. Average Events per Million Hours: 10 (1X10−05 per hour)

    2. Maximum Events per Million Hours: 100 (1X10−04 per hour)

    Note:

    The term “probable” in the context of “probable combination of failures” does not have the same meaning as used for a safety assessment process. The term “probable” in “probable combination of failures” means “foreseeable,” or those failure conditions anticipated to occur one or more times during the operational life of each airplane.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 13, 2015. Earl Lawrence, Manger, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20756 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3144; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-110-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of significant fuel leakage at the middle position of the left outboard slat. This proposed AD would require modifying the assembly of the slat extension mechanical stop. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the assembly of the slat extension mechanical stop, which if not corrected, could lead to a significant fuel leak and result in an uncontained fire.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    • Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.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.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3144; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-3144; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-110-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0115, dated May 13, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The MCAI states:

    After landing, an aeroplane experienced a significant fuel leakage at the middle position of the left outboard slat. Investigations showed that the fuel spillage originated in a structural cap, which had been punctured by a broken locking pin of the slat extension mechanical stop.

    A design review revealed that the locking pin could become loose due to an incorrect installation combined with a non-fault-tolerant design.

    This condition, if not corrected, may lead to a significant fuel leak, possibly resulting in an uncontained fire.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Dassault Aviation developed a modification of the slat extension mechanical stop assembly (Mod M3678 for F2000EX aeroplanes and Mod M5870 for F900EX aeroplanes) with the purpose to increase its robustness with regards to possible mishandling on production or during maintenance. Dassault Aviation also published Service Bulletin (SB) F2000EX-344 and SB F900EX-450, for embodiment in service of that modification.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA AD] requires modification of the slat extension mechanical stop assembly.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3144.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Dassault Service Bulletin F900EX-450, dated March 10, 2014; and Service Bulletin F2000EX-344, dated March 10, 2014. This service information describes procedures for modifying the assembly of the slat extension mechanical stop. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 67 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $3,510 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $280,730, or $4,190 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2015-3144; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-110-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 5, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

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

    (1) Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes, all serial numbers on which Dassault Aviation Modification M5281 has been embodied, except those on which Dassault Aviation Modification M5870 has been embodied in production.

    (2) Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes, all serial numbers on which Dassault Aviation Modification M2846 has been embodied, except those on which Dassault Aviation Modification M3678 has been embodied in production.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of significant fuel leakage at the middle position of the left outboard slat. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the assembly of the slat extension mechanical stop, which if not corrected, could lead to a significant fuel leak and result in an uncontained fire.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Modification

    Within 9 months or 440 flight hours, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD: Modify the assembly of the slat extension mechanical stop, in accordance with Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F900EX-450, dated March 10, 2014; or Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-344, dated March 10, 2014, as applicable.

    (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, 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: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; 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 Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0115, dated May 13, 2014, 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-2015-3144.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 11, 2015. Suzanne Masterson, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20586 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3143; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-047-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-135 airplanes and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of chafing between the fuel pump electrical harness and the fuel pump tubing during scheduled maintenance. This proposed AD would require a detailed inspection for chafing on the electrical harness of each electrical fuel pump in the fuel tanks, replacing the affected electrical fuel pump with a new or serviceable pump if necessary, and installing clamps on the fuel pump electrical harnesses. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct chafing of the fuel pump harnesses with other parts inside the fuel tank, which could present a potential ignition source that could result in a fire or fuel tank explosion.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer), Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170-Putim-12227-901 São Jose dos Campos-SP-Brasil; telephone +55 12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax +55 12 3927-7546; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.flyembraer.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.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3143; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1175; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-3143; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-047-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2015-03-01, effective March 23, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-135 airplanes and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Chafing between the fuel pump electrical harness and fuel pump tubing was detected during scheduled maintenance. We are issuing this [Brazilian] AD to protect the fuel pump harnesses against chafing with other parts inside the fuel tank, which could present a potential ignition source that could result in a fire or fuel tank explosion.

    The required actions include a detailed inspection for chafing on the electrical harness of each electrical fuel pump in the fuel tanks, replacing the affected electrical fuel pump with a new or serviceable pump if necessary, and installing clamps on the fuel pump electrical harnesses. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3143.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Embraer has issued Service Bulletin 145-28-0030, Revision 01, dated October 22, 2010; and Service Bulletin 145LEG-28-0032, Revision 01, dated November 20, 2012. The service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection for chafing on the electrical harness of each electrical fuel pump in the fuel tanks, replacing the affected electrical fuel pump with a new or serviceable pump if necessary, and installing clamps on the fuel pump electrical harnesses. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 731 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 11 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $683,485, or $935 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 6 work-hours and require parts costing $11,242, for a cost of $11,752 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer): Docket No. FAA-2015-3143; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-047-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 5, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-135ER-135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Embraer Service Bulletin 145-28-0030, Revision 01, dated October 22, 2010.

    (2) Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-135BJ airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG-28-0032, Revision 01, dated November 20, 2012.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of chafing between the fuel pump electrical harness and the fuel pump tubing during scheduled maintenance. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct chafing of the fuel pump harnesses with other parts inside the fuel tank, which could present a potential ignition source that could result in a fire or fuel tank explosion.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Detailed Inspection and Corrective Action

    Do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD at the applicable times specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Do a detailed inspection for chafing on the electrical harness of each electrical fuel pump in the fuel tanks, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 145-28-0030, Revision 01, dated October 22, 2010 (for Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes); or Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG-28-0032, Revision 01, dated November 20, 2012 (for Model EMB-135BJ airplanes). If any chafing is found, before further flight, replace the affected electrical fuel pump with a new or serviceable pump having the same part number, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 145-28-0030, Revision 01, dated October 22, 2010; or Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG-28-0032, Revision 01, dated November 20, 2012; as applicable.

    (2) Install clamps on the fuel pump electrical harnesses, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 145-28-0030, Revision 01, dated October 22, 2010 (for Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes); or Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG-28-0032, Revision 01, dated November 20, 2012 (for Model EMB-135BJ airplanes).

    (h) Compliance Times

    (1) For Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes: Do the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD within 2,500 flight hours or 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (2) For Model EMB-135BJ airplanes: Do the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD within 4,800 flight hours or 48 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (i) 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 Embraer Service Bulletin 145-28-0030, dated September 1, 2010 (for Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes); or Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG-28-0032, dated September 15, 2012 (for Model EMB-135BJ airplanes). This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (j) 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: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1175; 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 Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC); or ANAC's authorized Designee. If approved by the ANAC Designee, the approval must include the Designee's authorized signature.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2015-03-01, dated March 23, 2015, 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-2015-3143.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer), Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170-Putim-12227-901 São Jose dos Campos-SP-Brasil; telephone +55 12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax +55 12 3927-7546; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.flyembraer.com. 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 12, 2015. Suzanne Masterson, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20589 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-108214-15] RIN 1545-BM69 Exception From Passive Income for Certain Foreign Insurance Companies; Hearing; Correction AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

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

    SUMMARY:

    This document corrects a notice of public hearing on proposed regulations that published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, August 19, 2015. The proposed regulations provide guidance regarding when a foreign insurance company's income is excluded from the definition of passive income under section 1297(b)(2)(B).

    DATES:

    Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing being held on Friday, September 18, 2015 (see the document published at 80 FR 50239, August 19, 2015), are still being accepted and must be received by August 26, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The notice of a public hearing on a proposed rulemaking that is the subject of this document is under section 1297(b)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code.

    Need for Correction

    As published, the notice of a public hearing on a proposed rulemaking (REG-108214-15) contains an error that is misleading and is in need of clarification.

    Correction to Publication

    Accordingly, the notice of a public hearing on a proposed rulemaking, that is the subject of FR Doc. 2015-20468, is corrected as follows:

    1. On page 50239, in the preamble, column 3, under the caption “SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION”, the last line of the first full paragraph, the language “topic by Wednesday, August 19, 2015” is corrected to read “topic by Wednesday, August 26, 2015”.

    Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
    [FR Doc. 2015-20849 Filed 8-19-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR part 3050 [Docket No. RM2015-19; Order No. 2666] 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 Ten). This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: September 17, 2015. Reply Comments are due: September 28, 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. Proposal Ten III. Initial Commission Action IV. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction

    On August 12, 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 Ten is attached to the Petition and proposes an analytical method change related to the proposed merger of Cost Segments 3 and 4 for purposes of constructing the Cost and Revenue Analysis (CRA) Report. 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 Ten), August 12, 2015 (Petition).

    II. Proposal Ten A. Background

    As background, the Postal Service explains that the historical reason for separation of Cost Segment 4, which requires costs for small post offices to be isolated and transparent, occurred when decisions to close some small post offices were under consideration. Id. Proposal Ten at 1. However, where postmasters (whose costs are reflected in Cost Segment 1) in small post offices (identified by the Postal Service as “CAG K” and “CAG L” offices) 2 may be doing all of the tasks with no clerks, it is difficult to use Cost Segment 4 to adequately measure labor costs at these post offices. Proposal Ten at 1.

    2 “CAG” refers to “cost ascertainment group” and is a method used by the Postal Service that classifies post offices based on volume of revenue generated. CAG K offices have 36-189 revenue units, and CAG L offices have less than 36. See Glossary of Postal Terms available at https://usps.com/publications/pub32.

    The In-Office Cost System (IOCS) maintains a separate panel for CAG K finance numbers that generally have one clerk. When the clerk is no longer there, no IOCS readings can be obtained and, as the number of IOCS reading of CAG K offices declines, the sampling variation increases until the sample is refreshed. Data suggest product costs in Cost Segment 4 are not statistically different from other small offices. Id. at 2.

    The Postal Service further explains that the POStPlan had potentially confusing impacts in Cost Segments 3 and 4. The Postal Service indicates that Postmaster Reliefs working at POStPlan 3 post offices were subject to reductions in force as a result of a September 5, 2014, ruling on an American Postal Workers Union arbitration that required four-hour and six-hour post offices to be assigned to clerks. According to the Postal Service, the effect of the ruling is that clerk costs in Cost Segments 3 and 4 may complicate the analysis of the effects of POStPlan. Furthermore, the Postal Service explains that recent cost increases in Cost Segment 4 are the result of reclassifying postmaster positions and shifting these positions from Cost Segment 1 to clerks in Cost Segments 3 and 4. Id. at 3.

    3 The POStPlan is a Postal Service initiative to match post office retail hours with workload, and represents an alternative, namely reducing retail window hours, in lieu of closing a post office. See Docket No. N2012-2, Advisory Opinion on Post Office Structure Plan, August 23, 2012.

    B. Proposal

    Under the proposal, for Fiscal Year 2015, the IOCS would include data from CAG K and L post offices with data from CAG H and J post offices, and their trial balance amounts used as control totals for full-time and part-time clerks would be merged and treated as one stratum when refreshed. Id. at 3-4.

    Cost Segment 4 Trial Balance Accounts would be merged into the corresponding 5-digit accounts in Cost Segment 3, creating a revised “Cost Segment 3 & 4” worksheet. The Cost Segment 3 account numbers and titles would be retained and the CRA Component would be expanded to “253 & 42.” Other conforming Trial Balance worksheet changes would be made, but the merger will not affect the “Outputs to CRA” and “Product specific” tabs in the Trial Balance. Id. at 4.

    In the Cost Segment 3 B workpapers, CAG K and L clerk costs would be incorporated into the Trial Balance control for Cost Segment 3. These changes would combine former Cost Segment 4 with the non-MODS office group in Cost Segment 3, and subject the mail processing, window service, and administrative activities at CAG K and L offices to the accepted cost methodology for each component. Id. Cost Segment 3 output spreadsheets and other reports would be unchanged. Id. The only change to the CRA Cost Model is to remove lines in the control table on sheets “Comp Master” and “DK Addends” relating to Cost Segment 4. Id.

    C. Rationale

    The Postal Service's rationale for Proposal Ten is that clerk costs in Cost Segment 4 have increased recently as clerks are appointed or assigned to former postmaster positions. Id. at 5. Moreover, because the CAG criterion using revenue amount to define Cost Segment 4 is sufficiently different from the transaction volumes used in POStPlan to designate post offices for reduction in hours, CAG K costs are not a valid proxy for POStPlan office costs. Id. The Postal Service further says the cost classification rationale for Cost Segment 4 is similar to Cost Segment 3 cost components because CAG K and L clerks perform a corresponding mix of activities such as mail processing, window service, and administrative components. However, Cost Segment 4 has limited IOCS sample data and some products have no Cost Segment 4 tallies, which results in zero measured costs in a given year.

    The Postal Service concludes that incorporating Cost Segment 4 costs with other post office costs would be a more reliable analysis for cost attribution and in line with Cost Segment 3 methodology. It would result in a better assessment of clerk costs and avoid distortions from analyzing Cost Segment 4 separately. Id.

    Proposal Ten includes a table demonstrating the impact of merging Cost Segment 4 costs with Cost Segment 3 costs by product. It shows a cost difference from a merger of $1,412,000 out of $12,945,185,000 or a 0.01 percent difference.4 Id. at 6.

    4 The Postal Service references files from FY 2014 Annual Compliance Report, USPS-FY14-32 and two additional files attached electronically.

    III. Initial Commission Action

    The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2015-19 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 Ten no later than September 17, 2015. Reply comments are due no later than September 28, 2015. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission designates Kenneth R. Moeller 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. RM2015-19 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 Ten), filed August 12, 2015.

    2. Comments are due no later than September 17, 2015. Reply comments are due no later than September 28, 2015.

    3. 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 docket.

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

    By the Commission.

    Shoshana M. Grove, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20633 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0564; FRL-9932-82-Region 7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Kansas; Cross State Air Pollution Rule AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Kansas submitted on March 30, 2015. This SIP revision provides Kansas' state-determined allowance allocations for existing electric generating units (EGUs) in the State for the 2016 control periods and replaces the allowance allocations for the 2016 control periods established by EPA under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). The CSAPR addresses the “good neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) that requires states to reduce the transport of pollution that significantly affects downwind nonattainment and maintenance areas. EPA is proposing to approve Kansas' SIP revision, incorporate the state-determined allocations for the 2016 control periods into the SIP, and amend the regulatory text of the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to reflect approval and inclusion of the state-determined allocations. EPA is proposing to approve Kansas' SIP revision because it meets the requirements of the CAA and the CSAPR requirements to replace EPA's allowance allocations for the 2016 control periods. This action is being proposed pursuant to the CAA and its implementing regulations. EPA's allocations of CSAPR trading program allowances for Kansas for control periods in 2017 and beyond remain in place until the State submits and EPA approves state-determined allowance allocations for those control periods through another SIP revision. The CSAPR FIPs for Kansas remain in place until such time as the State decides to replace the FIPs with a SIP revision.

    DATES:

    Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by September 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0564, by mail to Lachala Kemp, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lachala Kemp, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7214 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant 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 action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts 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.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxides.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Mark Hague, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20628 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0537; FRL-9932-54-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the District of Columbia addressing the infrastructure requirements for interstate transport pollution with respect to the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the District'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 action, 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.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing by September 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0537 by one of the following methods:

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

    B. Email: [email protected]

    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0537, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0537. 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 electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the District of Columbia Department of the Environment, Air Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20002.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emlyn Vélez-Rosa, (215) 814-2038, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication.

    Dated: August 7, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20526 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1994-0009; FRL—9932-76-Region 4] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the National Southwire Aluminum Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the National Southwire Aluminum Superfund Site (Site) located in Hawesville in Hancock County, Kentucky, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Kentucky, through the Kentucky Division of Waste Management (KDWM), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by September 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1994-0009, by mail to Michael Townsend, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Remedial Section, Superfund Remedial Branch, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, or Angela Miller, Enforcement & Community Engagement, Investigations & Community Engagement Section, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Townsend, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Remedial Section, Superfund Remedial Branch, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, email: [email protected] or (404) 562-8813.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the “Rules and Regulations” Section of today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the National Southwire Aluminum Superfund Site without prior Notice of Intent to Delete because we view this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this deletion in the preamble to the direct final Notice of Deletion and those reasons are incorporated herein. If we receive no adverse comment(s) on this deletion action, we will not take further action on this Notice of Intent to Delete. If we receive adverse comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final Notice of Deletion, and it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final Notice of Deletion based on this Notice of Intent to Delete. We will not institute a second comment period on this Notice of Intent to Delete. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

    For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Deletion which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: August 6, 2015. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20609 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    80 162 Friday, August 21, 2015 Notices ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES Notice of Committee Meeting and Virtual Meeting of the Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United States AGENCY:

    Administrative Conference of the United States.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administrative Conference of the United States will hold two meetings to consider a proposed statement on the subject of Issue Exhaustion in Preenforcement Judicial Review of Administrative Rulemaking. The first of these meetings will be an in-person committee meeting. The second meeting—the meeting of the Assembly—will be the 63rd plenary session of the Administrative Conference and is subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.). The Assembly will meet via a virtual, online Web forum extending over a period of approximately one week. Both meetings will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The committee meeting will take place on Wednesday, September 9, 2015, 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished prior to the scheduled end time. The Assembly meeting will be a virtual public meeting that will occur in an online format over the course of approximately one week, starting at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, September 18, 2015, and continuing through 6:00 p.m. on Friday, September 25, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The in-person committee meeting will be held at the Administrative Conference of the United States, Suite 706 South, 1120 20th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036. Any change in the location of the in-person meeting will be posted on the Administrative Conference's Web site (www.acus.gov). The virtual Assembly meeting will have no physical location. A link to this meeting will be posted on the Administrative Conference's Web site in advance of the meeting.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shawne McGibbon, General Counsel (Designated Federal Officer), Administrative Conference of the United States, Suite 706 South, 1120 20th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036; Telephone 202-480-2088; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Administrative Conference of the United States makes recommendations to federal agencies, the President, Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the United States regarding the improvement of administrative procedures (5 U.S.C. 594). The voting membership of the Conference, when meeting in plenary session, constitutes the Assembly of the Conference (5 U.S.C. 595).

    On Wednesday, September 9, 2015, there will be an in-person meeting, open to the public, of an ad hoc Committee on Issue Exhaustion. The purpose of this meeting will be to conduct preparatory work in anticipation of full consideration of a proposed statement by the Assembly at its 63rd Plenary Session, which will be conducted as a public, virtual (online) meeting over a period of approximately one week, beginning September 18, 2015.

    Committee Meeting

    Agenda: Consideration will be given to a proposed statement on the topic described below. Issue Exhaustion in Preenforcement Judicial Review of Administrative Rulemaking. This statement examines judicial application of an issue exhaustion requirement in preenforcement review of administrative rulemaking. It sets forth a series of factors that courts may consider when examining the doctrine of issue exhaustion in the context of preenforcement review of agency rules.

    Additional information about the proposed statement and the order of the agenda, as well as other materials related to the meeting, can be found on the Conference's Web site at: https://www.acus.gov/meetings-and-events/plenary-meeting/63rd-plenary-session.

    Public Participation: The Conference welcomes the attendance of the public at the in-person committee meeting, subject to space limitations, and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities or special needs. If you wish to attend in person, you must register by sending an email message to [email protected] no later than two days before the meeting, in order to facilitate entry and to confirm space availability. If you need special accommodations due to disability, please inform the Designated Federal Officer noted above at least seven days in advance of the meeting. Members of the public who attend the meeting may be permitted to speak only with the consent of the Chairman and the unanimous consent of the committee. Committee members and members of the public may also view the meeting via live webcast, which will be available at: https://livestream.com/ACUS.

    How to Submit Comments: Persons who wish to comment on the proposed statement may do so by submitting written comments either online by clicking “Submit a Comment” on the Web page listed above, or by U.S. Mail addressed to: Committee Meeting (Issue Exhaustion) Comments, Administrative Conference of the United States, Suite 706 South, 1120 20th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036. Comments for the committee meeting must be relevant to the recommendations being debated, and received no later than Friday, September 4, to ensure consideration.

    Virtual Assembly Meeting (63rd Plenary Session)

    Agenda: The Assembly will consider the proposed statement on the issue exhaustion doctrine described above.

    Conduct of the Virtual Meeting and How to Submit Comments: Consistent with the innovative techniques outlined in Administrative Conference Recommendation 2011-7, The Federal Advisory Committee Act—Issues and Proposed Reforms, the Administrative Conference will conduct a virtual and asynchronous Federal Advisory Committee Act meeting of the Assembly. A link to the Web forum on which the virtual meeting will occur will be provided on the Administrative Conference's Web site (www.acus.gov) and on the 63rd Plenary Session Web page in advance of the meeting: (https://www.acus.gov/meetings-and-events/plenary-meeting/63rd-plenary-session). Voting and non-voting members of the Conference, and members of the general public who wish to comment on the proposed statement, may submit online written comments by clicking “Submit a Comment” on the 63rd Plenary Session Web page on the Conference's Web site. Only members of the Assembly (i.e., voting members of the Conference) may vote. For quorum purposes, a majority of members of the Assembly must register their participation in the Assembly meeting, either by voting to approve or reject the proposed statement; or, at a minimum, indicating that they are present. Voting members will receive information directly on how to register their vote or their presence.

    The period for commenting and voting will commence at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, September 18, 2015, and will end at 6:00 p.m. on Friday, September 25, 2015. Relevant comments and a tally of votes will be publicly available through daily postings on the 63rd Plenary Session Web page.

    Additional information about the proposed statement, voting eligibility, financial disclosure for non-government members, and other materials related to the meeting, can be found at the 63rd Plenary Session Web page noted above.

    Dated: August 17, 2015. Shawne McGibbon, General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20621 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6110-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request August 17, 2015.

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

    Comments regarding this information collection received by September 21, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

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

    National Institute of Food and Agriculture

    Title: NIFA Proposal Review Process.

    OMB Control Number: 0524-0041.

    Summary of Collection: The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), administers competitive, peer-reviewed research, education and extension programs. The reviews are undertaken to ensure that projects supported by NIFA are of a high-quality and are consistent with the goals and requirements of the funding program. These programs are authorized pursuant to the authorities contained in the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3101), the Smith-Lever Act, and other legislative authorities.

    Need and Use of the Information: The collected information from the evaluations is used to support NIFA grant programs. NIFA uses the results of each proposal to determine whether a proposal should be declined or recommended for award. In order to obtain this information, an electronic questionnaire is used to collect information about potential panel and ad-hoc reviewers. If this information is not collected, it would be difficult for a review panel and NIFA staff to determine which projects warrant funding, or identify appropriate qualified reviewers. In addition, Federal grants staff and auditors could not assess the quality or integrity of the review, and the writer of the application would not benefit from any feedback on why the application was funded or not.

    Description of Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions; Business or other for-profit; Individuals or households; Federal Government; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 50,000.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion; Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 100,497.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20618 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Mineral County Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mineral County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Superior, Montana. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held September 16, 2015, at 6:00 p.m.

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

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at Superior Ranger District, 209 W. Riverside Avenue, Superior, Montana.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carole Johnson, Acting District Ranger, by phone at 406-822-4233 or via email at [email protected]; or Racheal Koke, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 406-822-3930 or via email at [email protected]

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is for the public to make project presentations to the committee.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by September 2, 2015, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Racheal Koke, RAC Coordinator, P.O. Box 460, Superior, Montana 59872; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 406-822-3903.

    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 14, 2015. Carole Johnson, Acting District Ranger.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20672 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (Board) will meet in Rapid City, South Dakota. The Board is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. App. II), the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et.seq.), the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1612), and the Federal Public Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (Public Law 108-447). Additional information concerning the Board, including the meeting summary/minutes, can be found by visiting the Board's Web site at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/blackhills/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 16, 2015, at 1:00 p.m.

    All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Mystic Ranger District, 8221 South Highway 16, Rapid City, South Dakota.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Jacobson, Board Coordinator, by phone at 605-673-9216 or by 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 to provide:

    (1) Over-snow and Non-motorized Working Group Report update;

    (2) Recreation Facilities Working Group update;

    (3) Forest Health Working Group update;

    (4) Northern Long Eared Bat Report;

    (5) Restoring Large Landscapes in the Black Hills—Video; and

    (6) Election preparation.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by September 7, 2015, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Board may file written statements with the Board's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Scott Jacobson, Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1019 North Fifth Street, Custer, South Dakota 57730; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 605-673-9208.

    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 17, 2015. Craig Bobzien, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20735 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Mineral County Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mineral County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Superior, Montana. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held September 30, 2015, at 6:00 p.m.

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

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at Superior Ranger District, 209 W. Riverside Avenue, Superior, Montana.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carole Johnson, Acting District Ranger, by phone at 406-822-4233 or via email at [email protected]; or Racheal Koke, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 406-822-3930 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 to vote on projects that were previously presented.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by September 2, 2015, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Racheal Koke, RAC Coordinator, P.O. Box 460, Superior, Montana 59872; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 406-822-3903.

    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: Aug 14, 2015. Carole Johnson, Acting District Ranger.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20673 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Agricultural Statistics Service Notice of Intent To Request Revision and Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection, the List Sampling Frame Surveys. Revision to burden hours will be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sampling design, and/or questionnaire length. Annually, NASS obtains lists of farm and ranch operators from different crop and livestock organizations. Historically we have averaged 500,000 potential new operators each year from these lists. Before adding these names to our list of active operators we will contact the operators to collect basic farming information from them on the size and type of operation. These data will be used to eliminate any duplication we may have with names already on our list. Since the 2017 Census of Agriculture will be conducted in 2018, the sample sizes for 2017 and 2018 will be greatly reduced. Additional questions may need to be added to the questionnaires to accommodate any new trends or changes in the farming community that need to be identified (i.e. Organic farming, renewable energy production, expansion of acreage of alternative or specialty crops, etc.).

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by October 20, 2015 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0140, by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include docket number above in the subject line of the message.

    eFax: (855) 838-6382.

    Mail: Mail any paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions to: David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Hand deliver to: David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Renee Picanso, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-2707. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, at (202) 690-2388.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: List Sampling Frame Surveys.

    OMB Control Number: 0535-0140.

    Expiration Date of Approval: May 31, 2016.

    Type of Request: Intent to Seek Approval to Revise and Extend an Information Collection for a period of three years.

    Abstract: The primary objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Service is to prepare and issue State and national estimates of crop and livestock production, economic statistics, environmental statistics related to agriculture and also to conduct the Census of Agriculture. The List Sampling Frame Surveys are used to develop and maintain a complete list of possible farm operations. The goal is to produce for each State a relatively complete, current, and unduplicated list of names for statistical sampling for agricultural operation surveys and the Census of Agriculture. Data from these agricultural surveys are used by government agencies and educational institutions in planning, farm policy analysis, and program administration. More importantly, farmers and ranchers use NASS data to help make informed business decisions on what commodities to produce and when is the optimal time to market their products. NASS data is useful to farmers in comparing their farming practices with the economic and environmental data published by NASS.

    Authority: These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985 as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) and the Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.

    NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),” Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 115, June 15, 2007, p. 33376.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per respondent.

    Respondents: Potential Farmers and Ranchers.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 175,000 (annually).

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: With an estimated response rate of approximately 80% we estimate the burden to be 40,500 hours (annually).

    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 will have practical utility; (b) 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; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, technological, or other forms of information technology collection methods. All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.

    Signed at Washington, DC, August 6, 2015. R. Renee Picanso, Associate Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20695 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P
    ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD Meetings AGENCY:

    Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) plans to hold its regular committee and Board meetings in Washington, DC, Tuesday through Thursday, September 8-10, 2015 at the times and location listed below.

    DATES:

    The schedule of events is as follows:

    Tuesday, September 8, 2015 1:30-2:30 p.m.—Technical Programs Committee 3:30-4:00 p.m.—Ad Hoc Committee on Design Guidance Wednesday, September 9, 2015 9:30-10:30 a.m.—Ad Hoc Committee on Frontier Issues 10:45-Noon—Technical Programs Committee 1:30-2:00 p.m.—Budget Committee: Vote 2:00-2:30 p.m.—Planning and Evaluation Committee 2:30-4:00 p.m.—Ad Hoc Committee Meetings: Closed Thursday, September 10, 2015 11:30-Noon—Ethics Briefing 1:30-3:00 p.m.—Board Meeting

    Guest Speaker: William Peterson, Executive Director, Office of Accessible Systems and Technology, Department of Homeland Security: Trusted Tester Program

    ADDRESSES:

    Meetings will be held at the Access Board Conference Room, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information regarding the meetings, please contact David Capozzi, Executive Director, (202) 272-0010 (voice); (202) 272-0054 (TTY).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    At the Board meeting scheduled on the afternoon of Thursday, September 10, 2015, the Access Board will consider the following agenda items:

    • Approval of the draft July 29, 2015 meeting minutes (vote)

    • Ad Hoc Committee Reports: Information and Communications Technologies; Self-Service Transaction Machines; Public Rights-of-Way and Shared Use Paths; Transportation Vehicles; Passenger Vessels; Medical Diagnostic Equipment; Frontier Issues; and Design Guidance

    • Budget Committee

    • Technical Programs Committee

    • Planning and Evaluation Committee

    • Election Assistance Commission Report

    • Executive Director's Report

    • Public Comment (final 15 minutes of the meeting)

    Members of the public can provide comments either in-person or over the telephone during the final 15 minutes of the Board meeting on Thursday, September 10. Any individual interested in providing comment is asked to pre-register by sending an email to [email protected] with the subject line “Access Board meeting—Public Comment” with your name, organization, state, and topic of comment included in the body of your email. All emails to register for public comment must be received by Friday, September 4, 2015. Commenters will be called on in the order by which they pre-registered. Due to time constraints, each commenter is limited to two minutes. Commenters on the telephone will be in a listen-only capacity until they are called on. Use the following call-in number: (877) 701-1628; passcode: 86801095 and dial in 5 minutes before the meeting begins at 1:30 p.m.

    All meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. An assistive listening system, Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), and sign language interpreters will be available at the Board meeting and committee meetings. Persons attending Board meetings are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other participants (see www.access-board.gov/the-board/policies/fragrance-free-environment for more information).

    You may view the Thursday, September 10, 2015 meeting through a live captioned webcast from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. at: http://www.access-board.gov/webcast.

    David M. Capozzi, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20702 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8150-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Oklahoma Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Hear Testimony Regarding the School to Prison Pipeline in the State AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Oklahoma Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday, September 11, 2015, for the purpose of hearing presenters testify about civil rights concerns regarding school discipline policies and juvenile justice administration as they relate to disparities in school disciplinary action and involvement in the juvenile justice system on the basis of race, color, and/or sex.

    Members of the public are invited and welcomed to make statements into the record during the open forum period from 4:15-4:45 pm. Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by September 30, 2015. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8311, or emailed to Melissa Wojnaroski, Civil Rights Analyst, at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    If persons who will attend the meeting require accommodations based on a disability, please contact Carolyn Allen at [email protected] at the Midwestern Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at: https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=269 and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Opening Remarks 8-8:15 a.m. • Panel 1: 8:15 a.m.-9:30 a.m.—School Administrator Panel • Panel 2: 9:45 a.m.-11:00 a.m.—Academic Panel • Panel 3: 11:15 a.m.-12:30 p.m.—Community Panel Break 12:30 p.m.-1:30 p.m. • Panel 4: 1:30 p.m.-2:45 p.m.—Government Panel • Panel 5: 3:00 p.m.-4:15 p.m.—Teacher Panel • Open Forum 4:15-4:45 p.m.—Public Participation Closing Remarks 4:45-5 p.m.
    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Friday, September 11, 2015, from 8 a.m.-5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Oklahoma City University School of Law, Crowe & Dunlevy Commons, 800 N. Harvey Avenue, Oklahoma City 73102.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at 312-353-8311 or [email protected].

    Dated: August 17, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20664 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Title: Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization.

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0175.

    Form Number(s): MQ-C2.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Number of Respondents: 7,500.

    Average Hours Per Response: 2 hours and 5 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 62,500.

    Needs and Uses: The U.S. Census Bureau on behalf of the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), within the Department of Defense (DOD), requests an extension of approval for the Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization (QPC). The survey provides information on use of industrial capacity in manufacturing and publishing plants as defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization began in the 1970's as an annual survey that collected fourth quarter data only. The annual survey continued through 2006. In 2007 the FRB requested that the survey be converted to a quarterly survey due to the necessity for quarterly data rather than annual. The survey is the only source of capacity rates at industry levels. Changes in capacity utilization are considered important indicators of investment demand and inflationary pressure. For these reasons, the estimates of capacity utilization are closely monitored by government policy makers and private sector decision makers.

    This survey utilizes a multi-mode data collection process that includes internet reporting, fax, telephone and mail. The survey collects the value of quarterly production and the value of production that could be achieved if operating under “full production” capability and “emergency production” capability. The ratio of the actual to the full is the basis of the estimates of full capacity utilization rates and similarly, the actual to the emergency for the emergency capacity utilization rates. The survey also collects information by shift, on work patterns at the actual production level.

    The FRB is the primary user of the current QPC data and expressed the need for these quarterly data. FRB publishes measures of industrial production (IP), capacity, and capacity utilization in its G.17 statistical release, which has been designated by the federal government as a Principal Federal Economic Indicator. Utilization rates from the QPC are a principle source for the measures of capacity and capacity utilization. The indexes of IP are either estimated from physical product data or estimated from monthly data on inputs to the production process, specifically production worker hours and an indicator of capital input. For many years, data on electric power use was used as the indicator of industry capital input. The deregulation of electricity markets led to the deterioration in the coverage and quality of the electricity data. As a result, in November 2005, the FRB discontinued its use of the industrial electric power data in the current estimates of IP. In order to maintain the quality of the IP index, the collection of these quarterly data, including the utilization rate data and the workweek of capital, are critical indicators of capital input use and industry output.

    The FRB uses these data in several ways. First, the QPC data is the primary source of the benchmark information for the capacity indexes and utilization rates published by the FRB. Second, the QPC utilization rate data and the capital workweek data are used as an indicator of capital use in the estimation of monthly IP. Third, the QPC utilization rate data and the workweek data are used to improve the projections of labor productivity that are used to align IP with comprehensive benchmark information from the Economic Census covering the Manufacturing sector and the Annual Survey of Manufactures. Finally, utilization rate data will assist in the assessment of recent changes in IP, as most of the high-frequency movement in utilization rates reflect production changes rather than capacity changes.

    The DLA uses the data to assess readiness to meet demand for goods under selected national emergency scenarios.

    In addition to the FRB and DLA uses, these data are published on the Census Bureau's Web site, http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/capacity/index.html.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

    Frequency: Quarterly.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, Section 8(b), 50 U.S.C. Section 98, et. seq, and 12 U.S.C. Section 244.

    This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: August 18, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20709 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD784 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; Supplemental Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement; Scoping Process; Request for Comments AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Supplemental notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS); request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council is in the process of preparing an environmental impact statement for Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan. Amendment 8 would specify a long-term acceptable biological catch control rule for the herring fishery and consider alternatives for this control rule that explicitly account for herring's role in the ecosystem. The Council recently decided to expand the scope of Amendment 8 to include consideration of localized depletion in inshore waters. During this comment period, the Council is only seeking comments on the expanded scope of Amendment 8.

    DATES:

    Written scoping comments must be received on or before 5 p.m., local time, September 30, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written scoping comments may be sent by any of the following methods:

    • Email to the following address: [email protected];

    • Mail to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950; or

    • Fax to (978) 465-3116.

    • Please indicate “Herring Amendment 8 Re-Scoping Comment” on your correspondence.

    Requests for copies of the Amendment 8 scoping document and other information should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950, telephone (978) 465-0492. The scoping document is accessible electronically via the Internet at http://www.nefmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The purpose of this notification is to alert the interested public of the Council's intent to expand the scope of Amendment 8 to consider localized depletion in inshore waters. In general, localized depletion is when harvesting takes more fish than can be replaced either locally or through fish migrating into the catch area within a given time period. The Council will consider input from the interested public as to how to define, measure, evaluate impacts, and minimize inshore, localized depletion in the herring fishery as part of the scoping process and during the development of Amendment 8.

    Initially, the Council proposed Amendment 8 to further consider long-term harvest strategies for herring, including an allowable biological catch (ABC) control rule that addresses the biological needs of the herring resource and explicitly accounts for herring's role in the ecosystem. A detailed description of the background and need for Amendment 8 can be found in the original NOI dated February 26, 2015 (80 FR 10458).

    At its June 2015 meeting, the Council reviewed scoping comments on Amendment 8 and considered goals and objectives for the amendment. The Council recommended the following goals for Amendment 8: (1) Account for the role of herring within the ecosystem, including its role as forage; (2) stabilize the fishery at a level designed to achieve optimum yield; and (3) address localized depletion in inshore waters. The Council also recommended that an objective for Amendment 8 be to develop and implement an ABC control rule that manages herring within an ecosystem context and addresses the goals of Amendment 8.

    Public Comment

    Scoping consists of identifying the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered. During this comment period, the Council is only seeking comments on Amendment 8's consideration of localized depletion in inshore waters. All persons affected by or otherwise interested in herring management are encouraged to submit comments on the expanded scope of Amendment 8 by submitting written comments (see ADDRESSES) or by attending the supplemental scoping meeting for this amendment. The supplemental scoping meeting will be held during the afternoon of the Council's Herring Committee meeting on September 15, 2015, at the Hilton Garden Inn, 100 Boardman Street, Boston, MA 02128, (617) 567-6789.

    After the scoping process is completed, the Council will continue development of Amendment 8 and preparation of an EIS to analyze the impacts of the range of alternatives under consideration. Impacts may be direct, individual, or cumulative. The public will also have the opportunity to comment during public meetings and public comment periods throughout the development of Amendment 8, consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

    Special Accommodations

    The meetings are accessible to people with physical disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies (see ADDRESSES) at least five days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 18, 2015. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20798 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Addition and Deletion AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Addition to and Deletion from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes a product previously furnished by such agency.

    Comments must be received on or before: 9/21/2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT COMMENTS CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Addition

    If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to provide the service listed below from the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following service is proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:

    Service: Service Type: Contractor Operated Parts Store Service Service Mandatory For: US Marine Corps Garrison Mobile Equipment Branch, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Building 5400, Albany, GA. Mandatory Source of Supply: Training, Rehabilitation, & Development Institute, Inc., San Antonio, TX. Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, Commanding General, Camp Lejeune, NC. Deletion:

    The following product is proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Product: NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7520-01-439-3392—Desk Set, Liberty. Mandatory Source of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI. Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY. Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20731 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds products and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products and services from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: 9/21/2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Additions

    On 5/15/2015 (80 FR 27929-27930), 6/5/2015 (80 FR 32096-32097), 6/19/2015 (80 FR 35320-35321), 6/26/2015 (80 FR 36773-36774), and 7/10/2015 (80 FR 39759-39760), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products and services are added to the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s) 5120-00-NIB-0120—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 1/4″ 5120-00-NIB-0121—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 5/16″ 5120-00-NIB-0122—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 11/32″; 5120-00-NIB-0123—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 3/8″; 5120-00-NIB-0124—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 7/16″; 5120-00-NIB-0125—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 1/2″ 5120-00-NIB-0126—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 9/16″ 5120-00-NIB-0127—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 5/8″ 5120-00-NIB-0128—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 11/16″ 5120-00-NIB-0129—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 3/4″ 5120-00-NIB-0130—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 13/16″ 5120-00-NIB-0131—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 7/8″ 5120-00-NIB-0132—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 15/16″ 5120-00-NIB-0133—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 1″ 5120-00-NIB-0139—Wrench Set, Combination, Chrome, 12pt, 3/8″-1″ 5120-00-NIB-0147—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 10MM 5120-00-NIB-0148—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 11MM 5120-00-NIB-0149—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 12MM 5120-00-NIB-0150—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 13MM 5120-00-NIB-0151—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 14MM 5120-00-NIB-0152—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 15MM 5120-00-NIB-0153—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 16MM 5120-00-NIB-0154—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 17MM 5120-00-NIB-0155—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 18MM 5120-00-NIB-0156—Wrench, Combination, Chrome, 12 Pt, 19MM 5120-00-NIB-0157—Wrench Set, Combination, Chrome, 12pt, 10MM-19MM Mandatory Source of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI Mandatory Purchase For: Broad Government Requirement Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Kansas City, MO Distribution: B-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8940-01-E62-4753—Gravy Mix, Brown, 8/12 oz. Containers 8940-01-E62-4754—Gravy Mix, Chicken, 8/12 oz. Containers 8940-01-E62-4755—Gravy Mix, Brown, Low Sodium, 8/12 oz. Containers 8940-01-E62-4756—Gravy Mix, Country, 8/20 oz. Containers 8940-01-E62-4757—Gravy Mix, Turkey, 8/12 oz. Containers 8940-01-E62-4758—Gravy Mix, Chicken, Low Sodium, 8/12 oz. Containers Mandatory Source of Supply: CW Resources, Inc., New Britain, CT Mandatory Purchase For: 100% of the requirement of the Department of Defense Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, PA Distribution: C-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8920-00-SAM-0169—Super Cereal Plus Mandatory Source of Supply: Transylvania Vocational Services, Inc., Brevard, NC Mandatory Purchase For: 20% of the tendered requirement up to 500 Metric Tons per tender for the U.S. Agency for International Development's World Food Program Contracting Activity: USDA Farm Service Agency Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Kansas City, MO Distribution: C-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 1730-01-516-4899—Wheel Chock, Plastic, 14″ 1730-01-516-4900—Wheel Chock, Plastic, 20″ Mandatory Source of Supply: NewView Oklahoma, Inc., Oklahoma City, OK Mandatory Purchase For: 100% of the requirement of the Department of Defense Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, PA Distribution: C-List Services Service Type: Third Party Logistics Service Service is Mandatory For: US Department of State, Arlington, VA Mandatory Source of Supply: Human Technologies Corporation, Utica, NY Contracting Activity: State, Department of, Office of Acquisition Mgmt—MA, Arlington, VA Service Type: Custodial Service Service is Mandatory For: US Marine Corps, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, NC Mandatory Source of Supply: Coastal Enterprises of Jacksonville, Inc., Jacksonville, NC Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, Commanding General Camp Lejeune, NC Service Type: Document Destruction Service Service is Mandatory For: Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Integrated Service Network 10, Kettering, OH Mandatory Source of Supply: Greene, Inc., Xenia, OH Contracting Activity: Veterans Affairs, Department of, 552-Dayton, Dayton, OH Service Type: Janitorial Service Service is Mandatory For: US Coast Guard, Transformation Warehouse, 1873 Eringhaus Street, Elizabeth City, NC Mandatory Source of Supply: Skills, Inc., Elizabeth City, NC Contracting Activity: U.S. Coast Guard, Aviation Logistics Center (ALC), Elizabeth City, NC Deletions

    On 7/10/2015 (80 FR 39759-39760), and 7/17/2015 (80 FR 42481-42483), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and service deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products and service are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7530-01-072-2533—Paper, Mimeograph and Duplicating Mandatory Source of Supply: Louisiana Association for the Blind, Shreveport, LA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7510-01-587-3931—Refill, Pencil Lead, Bio-Based and Biodegradable Pencil 7520-01-587-3932—Pencil, Mechanical, Bio-Based and Biodegradable 7520-01-587-3933—Pencil, Mechanical, Bio-Based and Biodegradable 7520-01-587-3934—Pencil, Mechanical, Bio-Based and Biodegradable 7520-01-587-3935—Pencil, Mechanical, Bio-Based and Biodegradable 7510-01-587-3936—Refill, Pencil Lead, Bio-Based and Biodegradable Pencil Mandatory Source of Supply: San Antonio Lighthouse for the Blind, San Antonio, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7530-00-160-8476—Index Sheet Sets, Alphabetical, 9 1/2″ x 6″, Buff Mandatory Source of Supply: Easter Seals Western and Central Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, PA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Service Service Type: Food Service Attendant Service Service Mandatory For: United States Military Academy: Enlisted Dining Facility and Summer Camp Enlisted Dining Facility—Bldg 620 Knox Road, West Point, NY Mandatory Source of Supply: New Dynamics Corporation, Middletown, NY Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W40M Northern Region Contract Office, Fort Belvoir, VA Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20732 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION Electronic Filing of Targeting/Enforcement Data: Announcement of PGA Message Set Test and Request for Participants AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    To advance the concept of a “single window” to facilitate electronic collection, processing, sharing, and reviewing of trade data and documents required by federal agencies during the cargo import and export processes, and in furtherance of more accurately targeting imports to facilitate the flow of legitimate trade and enhanced targeting of noncompliant trade, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission” or “CPSC”) in consultation with U.S. Customs & Border Protection (“CBP”) announce their joint intent to conduct a test to assess the electronic filing of certain data via the Partner Government Agency (“PGA”) Message Set to the CBP-authorized Electronic Data Interchange (“EDI”) system known as the Automated Commercial Environment (“ACE”) for regulated finished consumer products under CPSC jurisdiction and three specified finished products included on the Substantial Product Hazard List established under section 15(j) of the CPSA. During the test, participants will collaborate with CBP and CPSC to examine the effectiveness of the “single window” capability. Based on stakeholder feedback, the test also will assess the concept of a data registry (the “Data Registry”), maintained by CPSC, which would allow stakeholders to file a reference to existing targeting/enforcement data through the PGA Message Set, rather than by entering all data for each entry.

    This notice provides the following key information:

    • International Trade Data System (“ITDS”) and CBP's authority to conduct test programs;

    • the Commission's authority regarding data collection and import surveillance;

    • the purpose of the test;

    • an explanation of the test concept;

    • the availability of CPSC's supplemental Customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements (“CATAIR”) guideline and request for technical comments;

    • participant eligibility, selection criteria, and responsibilities;

    • the advantages of test participation; and

    • a request that importers interested in test participation contact the Commission.

    DATES:

    Electronic requests to participate in the test program may be submitted on or before October 5, 2015 and throughout the duration of the test. CPSC will consider applications to participate until the test capacity of nine participants is filled. The test will continue until terminated by way of an announcement in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests to participate in the test and technical comments on CPSC's supplemental CATAIR guideline (which will be made available on CBP.gov) should be submitted through electronic mail to: [email protected] Requests to participate in the test should contain the subject heading: “Application to participate in PGA Message Set Test.” Technical comments on CPSC's supplemental CATAIR guideline should contain the subject heading “CATAIR Technical Comments.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions regarding the test should be directed to Jim Joholske, Deputy Director, Office of Import Surveillance, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, (301) 504-7527, [email protected] Questions sent by electronic mail should contain the subject heading “Question re PGA Message Set Test.” For technical questions regarding ACE or ABI transmissions, or the PGA message set data transmission, please contact your assigned CBP client representative. Interested parties without an assigned client representative should submit an email to Steven Zaccaro at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. The Automated Commercial Environment

    ACE is an automated and electronic system for commercial trade processing that 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 Automated Broker Interface (“ABI”) is a software interface to ACE. Commercial trade participants who want to file entries in ACE use ABI to electronically file required import data with CBP. ABI transfers trade-submitted data into ACE. CBP is developing ACE as the “single window” for the trade community to comply with the ITDS requirement established by the SAFE Port Act of 2006. The PGA Message Set enables additional trade-related data specified by PGAs to be entered in one location.

    B. CPSC and CBP Authority To Regulate the Importation of Consumer Products

    Section 14(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”), as amended by section 102(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (“CPSIA”), Public Law 110-314, requires manufacturers (including importers) and private labelers of certain regulated consumer products manufactured outside the United States to test and issue a certificate of compliance certifying such products as compliant with applicable laws and regulations before importation. Pursuant to section 14(a), the Commission promulgated a final rule on “certificates of compliance” on November 18, 2008 (73 FR 68328), which is codified at 16 CFR part 1110 (“part 1110”). Among other things, part 1110 limits the parties who must issue a certificate to the importer, for products manufactured outside the United States, and, in the case of domestically manufactured products, to the manufacturer, and allows certificates to be in hard copy or electronic form. In addition to this authority, the Commission has admissibility authority for importing consumer products and substances that are within the CPSC's jurisdiction under section 17 of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2066) and section 14 of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (“FHSA”) (15 U.S.C. 1273). Unless the Commission allows a product to be reconditioned for importation, section 17(a) of the CPSA requires refusal of admission and destruction of any product offered for import that, among other things, is not accompanied by a certificate of compliance required under section 14 of the CPSA, or is a product which is in violation of the inspection and recordkeeping requirements of section 16. In addition to the recordkeeping and inspection authority granted to the Commission under section 16(b), importers, retailers, and distributors of consumer products are required to identify the manufactuer of a consumer product by name, address, or other such identifying information requested by the Commission. 15 U.S.C. 2065(c).

    CPSC's authority to regulate the importation of consumer products is further derived from section 17(h)(1), which requires the Commisson to “establish and maintain a permanent product surveillance program, in cooperation with other appropriate Federal agencies, for the purpose of carrying out the Commission's responsibilities under this Act and the other Acts administered by the Commission and preventing the entry of unsafe consumer products into the commerce of the United States.” 15 U.S.C. 2066(h)(1). Also, under section 222 of the CPSIA, the CPSC is required to develop a risk assessment methodology for the identification of shipments of consumer products that are intended for import into the United States, and are likely to violate consumer product safety statutes and regulations. Consistent with the federal government's movement to the “single window,” CPSC eventually plans to require electronic filing of either limited targeting/enforcement data or full certificate data to refine our risk assessment methodology and improve our import surveillance program.

    Building on these authorities, CPSC works with CBP to review and inspect cargo and to clear compliant consumer products for importation into the United States. CPSC also works with CBP to enforce CPSC regulations and to destroy products that violate the law and cannot be reconditioned for importation. 15 U.S.C. 2066. For example, section 17 of the CPSA states that, upon the Commission's request, the Secretary of the Treasury has the authority to obtain samples of products offered for importation, without charge, and deliver such samples to the Commission for inspection. 15 U.S.C. 2066(b). Additionally, CBP has the authority to seize and destroy products offered for importation under the Tariff Act, codified at 19 U.S.C. 1595a(c)(2)(A), where the importation or entry of such products is subject to any restriction or prohibition which is imposed by law relating to health, safety, or conservation and such products are not in compliance with the applicable rule, regulation, or statute. An admissibility determination may be deferred to allow an importer to recondition products for entry. 15 U.S.C. 2066(c). CPSC and CBP have authority to supervise the reconditioning of products for entry that are still under CBP's bond. 15 U.S.C. 2066(d). If these products cannot be reconditioned, they must be refused admission and destroyed, unless the Secretary of the Treasury permits export in lieu of destruction. 15 U.S.C. 2066(d) & (e).

    Taken together, these authorities give CPSC a broad ability to monitor all consumer products within its jurisdiction. However, the PGA Message Set test described in this notice will be limited at this time to a study of CPSC regulated consumer products and the following products included on the Substantial Product Hazard List issued under section 15(j) of the CPSA (16 CFR part 1120): hand-supported hair dryers, extension cords, and seasonal and decorative lighting products. The Commission believes that insights gained through this limited PGA Message Set test will begin to inform future import surveillance efforts across broader areas of CPSC's jurisdiction.

    C. ITDS Goals and CBP's Authority To Conduct National Customs Automation Program Tests

    The ITDS is an electronic data interchange system whose goals include eliminating redundant information requirements, efficiently regulating the flow of commerce, and effectively enforcing 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 participating federal agencies. All federal agencies that require documentation for clearance or licensing the importation of cargo are required to participate in ITDS. The Customs Modernization provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act provide the Commissioner of CBP with authority to conduct limited test programs or procedures designed to evaluate planned components of the National Customs Automation Program (“NCAP”), which includes ACE. The PGA Message Set test described in this notice is in furtherance of the ITDS and NCAP goals.

    D. The “Single Window” Approach

    President Obama, on February 19, 2014, issued Executive Order 13659, Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's Businesses (“EO 13659”), which requires certain federal agencies to enhance significantly their use of technology to modernize and simplify the trade processing infrastructure. Specifically, EO 13659 requires applicable government agencies to use CBP's ITDS, and supporting systems, such as ACE, to create a “single window” through which businesses will electronically submit import-related data for clearance. EO 13659 envisions and is working toward a simpler, more efficient portal for trade use, to benefit the trade and government agencies that have related authorities and responsibilities.

    Participating agencies have until December 31, 2016, to implement ACE as the primary means of receiving agency-specific standardized import data. As an independent agency, CPSC is not bound by EO 13659, but electronic filing of more limited targeting/enforcement data or certificate data will aid CPSC in focusing the agency's resources to clear compliant products more efficiently, target noncompliant shipments more effectively, and improve enforcement of our safety statutes and regulations at the ports.

    E. Test Purpose and Goal

    Consumer protection, by preventing noncompliant products from ever reaching American homes and American children, was a primary impetus for passage of the CPSIA and remains a high priority initiative of the CPSC. Section 222 of the CPSIA calls for the creation of a risk assessment methodology to better target noncompliant products at import. Accordingly, CPSC currently will focus its resources on a test with CBP on electronic filing of more limited targeting/enforcement data elements, using the PGA Message Set. Information and feedback from the test will be used to inform the Commission in striving to improve and streamline the import process. The initial intent of this pilot was to require electronic filing of Certificates of Compliance for all regulated imported products. However, after consultation with stakeholders, the Commission has, for the time being, limited the current PGA Message Set Test to collection of certain minimal targeting/enforcement data. This PGA Message Set Test will not provide the Commission with information relating to levels of compliance with the statutory certificate requirements. However, the Commission believes obtaining such information continues to be important to informing future Commission decisions regarding the need for electronic filing of full certificate data.

    II. Targeting/Enforcement Data Test

    The test will allow two different methods of filing targeting/enforcement data, using the PGA Message Set: (1) Filing a minimum of 5 data elements at time of entry (“PGA Message Set”), or (2) filing only a reference to targeting/enforcement data stored in a Registry maintained by CPSC (“Data Registry and Reference PGA Message Set”). Targeting/enforcement data for regulated finished products and specified finished products subject to section 15(j) of the CPSA, either in the form of the complete data set or the registry reference, would be submitted through the PGA Message Set as part of an ACE entry, or ACE entry summary if both entry and entry summary are filed together. Targeting/enforcement data, along with entry data, would then be made available to CPSC for validation, risk assessment, and admissibility determinations at entry, thereby facilitating compliant trade as well as sharpening our focus on noncompliant trade. The data would be used to review consumer product entry requirements and allow for earlier risk-based admissibility decisions by CPSC staff. Additionally, because it is electronic, the PGA Message Set could eliminate the necessity for submission and subsequent handling of paper documents. Piloting electronic filing as a means to transition away from paper-based filing is a priority initiative of the PGAs to meet the stated “single window” implementation timeline.

    A. PGA Message Set

    To file data electronically with CBP, information required for eligible finished products would need to be filed in CBP's ACE system. The proposed PGA Message Set test would evaluate the electronic filing of a minimum of the five targeting/enforcement data elements listed below for regulated finished products and those data elements listed below that are applicable to the following products included on the Substantial Product Hazard List issued under section 15(j) of the CPSA: hand-supported hair dryers, extension cords, and seasonal and decorative lighting products.

    1. Identification of the finished product;

    2. Each consumer product safety rule to which the finished product has been certified under 16 CFR part 1110;

    3. Place where the finished product was manufactured, produced, or assembled, including the identity and address of the manufacturing party;

    4. Parties on whose testing a certificate under 16 CFR part 1110 depends (name and contact information of the testing entity); and

    5. A check box indicating that a required certificate currently exists for the finished product, as required by Sections 14 and 17 of the CPSA.

    Based on years of both CPSC and CBP staff law enforcement experience, CPSC staff has identified at this time the minimal data elements above as crucial for targeting noncompliant products before they enter commerce and enforcing related requirements.

    CPSC is drafting a supplemental CATAIR guideline on filing targeting/enforcement data through the PGA Message Set that describes the technical specifications for filing targeting/enforcement data using the PGA Message Set, as well as the Data Registry and Reference PGA Message Set (described in section II.B below). The supplemental CATAIR guideline will be made available before CBP initiates the test and will be posted on http://www.cbp.gov/trade/ace/catair. Technical comments on CPSC's supplemental CATAIR guideline should be submitted in accordance with the instructions in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.

    B. CPSC Data Registry and Data Reference PGA Message Set

    The Data Registry concept arises out of discussions at CPSC staff's 2014 eFiling workshop. Stakeholders noted that other agencies have existing databases that can be referenced during the CBP entry process without having to re-enter repeatedly large amounts of data. Participants expressed concern about added costs and time for importers to enter data for each regulated finished product and the need for accurate data entry. Customs brokers also expressed concern about lack of access to required data. For example, express carriers were concerned about meeting entry requirements during off-hour times when business personnel were unavailable for consultation. Stakeholders expressed concern that any requirement to re-enter large amounts of data, or lack of access to the required data, may slow the import process.

    After considering stakeholder comments and concerns, CPSC has decided to include a Data Registry in the test to inform the Commission whether this concept alleviates some of the concerns expressed at the 2014 eFiling workshop. Instead of filing complete targeting/enforcement data in ACE with each entry, participants can elect to pre-file information into a Data Registry before filing an entry with CBP. The Data Registry will be created and maintained by CPSC. Use of the Data Registry will be voluntary. Firms can use the Data Registry to enter targeting/enforcement data and to manage those data; or firms with established databases or processes can provide information for many products electronically in a batch upload.

    Once targeting/enforcement data are filed in the Data Registry, filers will only need to provide a reference, or identifier, to the data using the PGA Message Set during the entry process, rather than entering all data multiple times. Firms that choose to use the Data Registry only would need to provide their filer with an identifier, and would not need to provide all data elements for each product being imported. Using the Data Registry should minimize data entry; reduce costs and filing time; and allow firms to manage, update, and re-use targeting/enforcement data in the registry. CPSC demonstrated a prototype of the Registry at the May 13, 2015 public meeting with the COAC working group. A webcast of this meeting can be viewed here: http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroom/Multimedia/?vid=73411.

    III. Test Participant Eligibility, Selection Criteria, and Responsibilities

    This document announces CPSC's plan, in consultation with CBP, to conduct a test for the electronic filing of targeting/enforcement data with CBP for regulated consumer products within CPSC's jurisdiction and specified products subject to section 15(j) of the CPSA that are imported into the United States. Test participants will work with CPSC and CBP to refine electronic filing of data through the PGA Message Set, by filing all data elements in the PGA Message Set, or by using the Data Registry, and filing a reference to targeting/enforcement data through PGA Message Set. CBP and CPSC are seeking small and large companies with an assortment of products under CPSC jurisdiction to participate in the test.

    To be eligible to apply as a test participant, the applicant must:

    • Import regulated consumer products within the Commission's jurisdiction or specified products subject to section 15(j) of the CPSA;

    • File consumption entries and entry summaries in ACE, or have a broker who files in ACE;

    • Use a software program that has completed ACE certification testing for the PGA Message Set;

    • Be willing to participate in the Trade Support Network (TSN);

    • Provide oral and written feedback on all aspects of the test as requested by CPSC, including information on costs to build to the requirements and time necessary to file targeting/enforcement data;

    • Work with CPSC and CBP to test electronic filing of data using ABI to file through the Message Set, or references to targeting/enforcement data in the Data Registry; and

    • Have a history of compliance with CPSC requirements.

    Because the feedback on the test will be used to inform a rulemaking related to electronic filing, participant feedback will be publicly available.

    CPSC, in consultation with CBP, will select participants based on the eligibility requirements, application date, the number and type of consumer products imported, how applicants would file targeting/enforcement data (PGA Message Set or Data Registry and Reference PGA Message Set), port locations, and the goal of having a diverse cross section of the trade community participate. The number of participants will be limited in the discretion of CPSC, but will in no event exceed nine participants. Selected applicants will participate in the test at the discretion of CBP and CPSC.

    IV. Application Process

    Any party seeking to participate in the test should email the company name, contact information, filer code, port(s) at which they are interested in filing, and an explanation of how they satisfy the requirements for participation to: [email protected] on or before October 5, 2015 and throughout the duration of the test. CPSC will consider applications to participate until the test capacity of nine participants is filled. Requests to participate in the test should contain the subject heading: “Application to participate in PGA Message Set Test.” Applicants may be contacted directly for additional information in connection with the selection process. Selected participants will be notified by email. Selected test participants may have different starting dates. A party providing incomplete information, or otherwise not meeting the participation requirements, will be notified by email and given the opportunity to resubmit the application. Applicants who are not selected also will be notified by email.

    V. Advantages of Participation

    During the period of participation in the test, which the CPSC refers to as the “eFiling Alpha Pilot,” test participants can expect the following:

    • Opportunity to work directly with CBP and CPSC in pre-implementation stage of e-Filing targeting/enforcement data;

    • Ability to provide feedback and experience that will inform ultimate e-Filing requirements;

    • Ability to trouble-shoot systems and procedures;

    • Reduction of product safety tests on goods imported;

    • In the event of an examination, shipments will be conditionally released to the importer's premises for examination;

    • In the event of testing, samples will receive “front of the line testing” from CPSC laboratories; and

    • If destruction of products is required, participants may be allowed to destroy products in lieu of redelivering the product to CBP for destruction.

    VI. Test Duration

    Upon selection into the test, test participants will be expected to begin work promptly with CBP and CPSC to define and refine requirements. Once the test is operational, the test is expected to run for approximately six months or until concluded or extended by the issuance of a Federal Register notice announcing the extension or conclusion of this test.

    VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    For this initial test of electronic filing of targeting/enforcement data, CPSC will accept fewer than 10 participants, and the test will be exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. If CPSC decides to participate in a larger-scale test, we will provide notice and seek an OMB control number specifically for such test.

    VIII. 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. As stated in previous notices, participation in this or any of the previous ACE tests is not confidential and upon a written Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request, a name(s) of an approved participant(s) will be disclosed by CPSC or CBP in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552.

    Dated: August 18, 2015. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20707 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) will take place. This meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, September 9, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.; Thursday, September 10, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Hilton Alexandria—Mark Center, 5000 Seminary Road, Alexandria, VA 22311.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Robert Bowling or DACOWITS Staff at 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 04J25-01, Alexandria, Virginia 22350-9000. [email protected] Telephone (703) 697-2122. Fax (703) 614-6233. Any updates to the agenda or any additional information can be found at http://dacowits.defense.gov/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and Section 10(a), Public Law 92-463, as amended, notice is hereby given of a forthcoming meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS).

    The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to receive briefings and updates relating to their current work and vote on their 2015 recommendations. The Designated Federal Officer will give a status update on the Committee's requests for information. The Committee will receive a briefing from OSD Health Affairs on the Services' pregnancy/postpartum policies. The Navy and Coast Guard will give a briefing on the detailing/assignment process for women serving at sea. Additionally, the Committee will receive briefings from the Services on their In-Home Child Care Provider Certification programs. The Army will provide an update on the Army Ranger Assessment. Also, the Committee will propose and vote on their 2015 recommendations. There will also be a public comment period.

    Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to the point of contact listed at the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 8, 2015. If a written statement is not received by Tuesday, September 8, 2015, prior to the meeting, which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services until its next open meeting. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services Chair and ensure they are provided to the members of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. If members of the public are interested in making an oral statement, a written statement should be submitted. After reviewing the written comments, the Chair and the Designated Federal Officer will determine who of the requesting persons will be able to make an oral presentation of their issue during an open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140(d), determination of who will be making an oral presentation is at the sole discretion of the Committee Chair and the Designated Federal Officer and will depend on time available and if the topics are relevant to the Committee's activities. Two minutes will be allotted to persons desiring to make an oral presentation. Oral presentations by members of the public will be permitted only on Thursday, September 10, 2015 from 8:15 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. in front of the full Committee. The number of oral presentations to be made will depend on the number of requests received from members of the public.

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, this meeting is open to the public, subject to the availability of space.

    Meeting Agenda Wednesday, September 9, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. —Welcome, Introductions, Announcements —Request for Information Status Update —Briefing—Medical Review of the Services' Pregnancy/Postpartum Policies — Briefings—Detailing/Assignment Process for Women Serving at Sea —Briefings—Review of In-Home Child Care Provider Certification Programs — Briefing—Update on Army Ranger Assessment Thursday, September 10, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. —Welcome and Announcements — Public Comment Period —Propose and Vote on 2015 Recommendations Dated: August 17, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20650 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Availability of a Draft Feasibility Study With Integrated Environmental Impact Statement, Ala Wai Canal Project, Oahu, HI AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) announces the availability of a Public Review Draft Feasibility Study with Integrated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), for the Ala Wai Canal Project, Oahu, Hawaii. To better inform potential commenters, a public meeting is scheduled on September 30, 2015 at Washington Middle School in Honolulu, Hawaii. The Draft Feasibility Study/EIS evaluates alternatives to manage flood risk within the Ala Wai watershed, which includes the neighborhoods of Makiki, Manoa, Palolo, Kapahulu, Moiliili, McCully, and Waikiki. It also documents the existing condition of environmental resources in areas considered for locating flood risk management features and potential impacts on those resources that could result from implementing each alternative. The State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources is the non-Federal sponsor and the proposing agency for compliance with the Hawaii law on Environmental Impact Statements.

    DATES:

    All written comments must be postmarked on or before October 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted to the Ala Wai Canal Project, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District, ATTN: Derek Chow, Chief, Civil and Public Works Branch (CEPOH-PP-C), Building 230, Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5440 or via email to [email protected] Oral and written comments may also be submitted at the public meeting described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Derek Chow, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District, 808-835-4026 or via email at [email protected] .

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    The document is available for review at the following locations including all regional libraries in Hawaii and the library branches in the project area:

    (1) Ala Wai Canal Project Web site: www.AlaWaiCanalProject.com;

    (2) Hawaii Kai Public Library, 249 Lunalilo Home Road, Honolulu, HI 96825;

    (3) Hawaii State Library, 478 S. King Street, Honolulu, HI 96813;

    (4) Hilo Public Library, 300 Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720;

    (5) Kaimuki Public Library, 1041 Koko Head Avenue, Honolulu, HI 96816;

    (6) Kaneohe Public Library, 45-829 Kamehameha Highway, Kaneohe, HI 96744;

    (7) Kahului Public Library, 90 School Street, Kahului, HI 96732;

    (8) Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, 402 Kapahulu Avenue, Honolulu, HI 96815;

    (9) Lihue Public Library, 4344 Hardy Street, Lihue, HI 96766;

    (10) Manoa Public Library, 2716 Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822;

    (11) McCully-Moiliili Public Library, 2211 S. King Street, Honolulu, HI 96826;

    (12) Pearl City Public Library, 1138 Waimano Home Road, Pearl City, HI 96782;

    (13) University of Hawaii, Hamilton Library, 2550 McCarthy Mall, Honolulu, HI 96822; and

    (14) Waikiki-Kapahulu Public Library, 400 Kapahulu Avenue, Honolulu, HI 96815.

    Copies may also be requested in writing at (see ADDRESSES).

    Proposed Action. The Ala Wai Canal Project, Oahu, Hawaii feasibility study is a single-purpose flood risk management project to reduce riverine flood risks to property and life safety in the Ala Wai Watershed. The Ala Wai Watershed is located on the southeastern side of the island of Oahu, Hawaii. The watershed is 19 square miles and encompasses three sub-watersheds of Makiki, Manoa and Palolo Streams, which all drain into the Ala Wai Canal. The study area includes the most densely populated watershed in Hawaii with approximately 200,000 residents in the developed areas. In addition, Waikiki supports approximately 79,000 visitors on a daily basis.

    This study was authorized under Section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (Pub. L. 87-874), a general study authority that authorizes surveys in harbors and rivers in Hawaii “with a view to determining the advisability of improvements in the interest of navigation, flood control, hydroelectric power development, water supply, and other beneficial uses, and related land resources.”

    Alternatives. The Draft Feasibility Study/EIS considers a full range of nonstructural and structural flood risk management alternatives that would meet the proposed action's purpose and need and incorporate measures to avoid and minimize impacts to native aquatic species, stream habitat, and other resources. In response to identified flood-related problems and opportunities, a range of alternatives were evaluated through an iterative screening and formulation process, resulting in identification of a tentatively selected plan.

    The Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) is the National Economic Development (NED) Plan and consists of the following components: improvements to the flood warning system, 6 in-stream debris and detention basins in the upper reaches of the watershed, 1 stand-alone debris catchment feature, 3 multi-purpose detention basins in open space areas through the developed watershed, floodwalls along portions of the Ala Wai Canal, mitigation measures, and 3 associated pump stations to maintain internal drainage. Canal floodwalls would extend approximately 1.7 miles along the left (makai) bank and approximately 0.9 mile along the right (mauka) bank (including gaps for bridges).

    Public Involvement. As part of the current public involvement process, all affected Federal, State, and local agencies, Native Hawaiian organizations, private organizations, and the public are invited to review and comment on the Draft Feasibility Study with Integrated EIS. The USACE Honolulu District will hold a public meeting at Washington Middle School, 1633 S. King Street, Honolulu, HI from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 30, 2015. Comments may also be submitted as described in (see ADDRESSES) section.

    Other Environmental Review Requirements. To the extent practicable, NEPA and HRS Chapter 343 requirements will be coordinated in the preparation of the Final EIS.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20714 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to Non-State Educational Agency (Non-SEA) Eligible Applicants for Planning, Program Design, and Initial Implementation and for Dissemination AGENCY:

    Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Overview Information:

    CSP Grants to Non-SEA Eligible Applicants for Planning, Program Design, and Initial Implementation and for Dissemination.

    Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2016.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.282B and 84.282C.

    Dates:

    Applications Available: August 21, 2015.

    Dates of Pre-Application Webinars (all times are Washington, DC time):

    1. August 26, 2015, 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and

    2. September 9, 2015, 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: October 6, 2015.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: December 21, 2015.

    Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the CSP is to increase national understanding of the charter school model by expanding the number of high-quality charter schools available to students across the Nation; providing financial assistance for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools; and evaluating the effects of charter schools, including their effects on students, student academic achievement, staff, and parents.

    This notice invites applications from non-SEA eligible applicants for two types of grants: (1) Planning, Program Design, and Initial Implementation (CFDA 84.282B); and (2) Dissemination (CFDA 84.282C). Each type of grant has its own eligibility requirements and selection criteria. Information pertaining to each type of grant is provided in subsequent sections of this notice.

    Non-SEA eligible applicants are those that are qualified to participate based on requirements set forth in this notice. Non-SEA eligible applicants must be from States in which the SEA does not have an approved application under the CSP. For more information on this eligibility restriction, please see the notes in Section III.1.b. of this notice.

    Priorities: This notice includes one absolute priority, three competitive preference priorities, and one invitational priority. The absolute priority and competitive preference priorities are from the notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425) (Supplemental Priorities).

    Background: The absolute and competitive preference priorities focus this competition on assisting educationally disadvantaged students and other students—specifically students who are living in poverty, students with disabilities, English learners, students who are members of federally recognized Indian tribes, and students in rural areas—in meeting State academic content standards and State student academic achievement standards. Additionally, we include a competitive preference priority for improving early learning and development outcomes.

    The competitive preference priorities for projects serving students with disabilities and English learners are included for the following reasons. First, a 2012 report indicated that charter schools may be serving students with disabilities at a lower rate than traditional public schools.1 Second, across the Nation, the number of public school students identified as English learners increased significantly from 2002 to 2012, with the 2014 National Assessment of Educational Progress reports showing significant achievement gaps between English learners and their peers.2 Additionally, recent research indicates that charter schools show gains for students with disabilities in mathematics and for English learners in mathematics and reading that are higher than those for their counterparts in other public schools.3 The competitive preference priorities are included to supplement the absolute priority and to further emphasize the focus on serving educationally disadvantaged students, particularly students with disabilities and English learners.

    1 Government Accountability Office. GAO-12-543, June 2012. “Additional Federal Attention Needed to Help Protect Access for Students with Disabilities,” available online at www.gao.gov/assets/600/591435.pdf.

    2 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2014. “The Condition of Education 2014 (NCES 2014-037),” available online at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014083.pdf.

    3 Center for Research on Education Outcomes. 2013. “National Charter School Study 2013,” available online at http://credo.stanford.edu/documents/NCSS%202013%20Final%20Draft.pdf.

    The Department understands that students who are members of federally recognized Indian tribes and their communities face unique challenges. The competitive preference priority for federally recognized Indian tribes is designed to encourage applicants to collaborate with Native American communities to design and implement high-quality charter schools as part of their efforts to strengthen public education.

    Furthermore, the Department recognizes that rural schools confront a particular set of challenges and seeks to encourage rural education leaders to use charter schools, as appropriate, as part of their overall efforts to improve educational outcomes.

    Lastly, the Department also believes that high-quality preschool should be provided to all children in the Nation so that they enter kindergarten ready to succeed in school. To promote charter schools' offering preschool as a part of their elementary education programs, we include in this competition a competitive preference priority for improving early learning and development outcomes.

    The absolute priority and competitive preference priorities are intended to encourage applicants to develop innovative projects designed to eliminate achievement gaps between the subgroups described in this notice and the highest-achieving subgroups in their States. The priorities are also intended to encourage applicants to develop innovative projects for students facing unique educational challenges.

    The invitational priority builds on these goals by focusing on applicants that are designing charter schools that will attract and serve students from diverse backgrounds. The Department encourages the meaningful inclusion of diversity in charter school models, and looks to learn more about successful practices through this invitational priority.

    Additionally, by way of background, under section 5210(1)(G) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 7221i(1)(G)), all charter schools receiving CSP funds must comply with various non-discrimination laws, including the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (i.e., rights afforded to students with disabilities and their parents). In addition, all charter schools receiving CSP funds must comply with applicable State laws.

    Absolute Priority: For FY 2016 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.

    This priority is:

    Supporting High-Need Students [Students Living in Poverty].

    Projects that are designed to improve academic outcomes and learning environments for students who are living in poverty and are served by schools with high concentrations of students living in poverty.

    Note:

    The Secretary encourages the applicant to describe, through the use of supporting data, the basis by which the applicant has determined that they meet this priority.

    Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2016 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we will award up to an additional three points to an application depending on how well the application addresses Competitive Preference Priority 1, up to an additional three points to an application depending on how well the application addresses Competitive Preference Priority 2, and up to an additional two points to an application depending on how well the application addresses Competitive Preference Priority 3. The maximum number of points an application can receive under these priorities is eight..

    These priorities are:

    Competitive Preference Priority 1—Supporting High-Need Students [Rural Students, Students with Disabilities, English Learners] (up to 3 points).

    Projects that are designed to improve academic outcomes and learning environments for one or more of the following groups of students:

    (a) Students served by Rural Local Educational Agencies.

    (b) Students with disabilities.

    (c) English learners.

    Note:

    Applicants may choose to respond to one or more of the priority areas and are not required to respond to each priority area in order to receive the maximum available points under this competitive preference priority.

    Competitive Preference Priority 2—Supporting High-Need Students [Federally Recognized Indian Tribes] (up to 3 points).

    Projects that are designed to improve academic outcomes and learning environments for students who are members of federally recognized Indian tribes.

    Competitive Preference Priority 3—Improving Early Learning and Development Outcomes (up to 2 points).

    Projects that are designed to improve early learning and development outcomes across one or more of the essential domains of school readiness for children from birth through third grade (or for any age group within this range) through a focus on including preschool, whether offered in school or community-based settings, as part of elementary education programs and systems in order to expand opportunities for preschool students and teachers.

    Invitational Priority: For FY 2016 and any subsequent year in which we make awards based on the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, this priority is an invitational priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we do not give an application that meets this invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.

    This priority is:

    Invitational Priority—Promoting Diversity.

    The Secretary is particularly interested in applications from charter school developers planning schools, or from charter schools, that are designed to attract and serve students from diverse backgrounds, including students from different racial and ethnic groups and educationally disadvantaged students (e.g., economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, migrant students, English learners, neglected or delinquent students, and homeless students), as reflected in the (a) charter school's mission statement, (b) vision of the charter school, or (c) charter or performance agreement between the charter school and its authorizer.

    Note:

    For information on permissible ways to address this priority, please refer to the joint guidance issued by the Department of Education and the Department of Justice entitled, “Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity and Avoid Racial Isolation in Elementary and Secondary Schools” at www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/guidance-ese-201111.pdf and to Section E of the CSP Nonregulatory Guidance at www2.ed.gov/programs/charter/nonregulatory-guidance.html.

    Application Requirements: An applicant applying for CSP grant funds, under either CFDA number 84.282B or 84.282C, must address the following application requirements, which are based on section 5203(b) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221b(b)). Applicants must also address the applicable selection criteria in this notice, and may choose to respond to the application requirements in the context of its responses to those selection criteria.

    (a) Describe the educational program to be implemented by the proposed charter school, including how the program will enable all students to meet challenging State student academic achievement standards, the grade levels or ages of children to be served, and the curriculum and instructional practices to be used;

    Note:

    An applicant proposing to operate a single-sex charter school should include in its application, or as an addendum to the application, a detailed description of how it is complying with applicable nondiscrimination laws, including the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution (as interpreted in United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) and other cases) and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681, et seq.) and its regulations, including 34 CFR 106.34(c) with respect to the single-sex school. Specifically, the applicant should provide a written justification for a proposed single-sex charter school that explains (1) how the single-sex charter school is based on an important governmental objective(s); and (2) how the single-sex nature of the charter school is substantially related to the stated objective(s). The applicant should also provide (1) information about whether there is a substantially equal single-sex school(s) for students of the excluded sex, and, if so, a detailed description of both the proposed single-sex charter school and the substantially equal single-sex school(s) based on the factors in 34 CFR 106.34(c)(3); and (2) information about whether there is a substantially equal coeducational school(s) for students of the excluded sex, and, if so, a detailed description of both the proposed single-sex charter school and the substantially equal coeducational school(s), based on the factors in 34 CFR 106.34(c)(3).

    An applicant proposing to operate single-sex classes or extracurricular activities offerings at a coeducational charter school should include in its application, or as an addendum to its application, a detailed description of how it is complying with applicable nondiscrimination laws, including the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution (as interpreted in United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) and other cases) and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681, et seq.) and its regulations, including 34 CFR 106.34(b), with respect to those single-sex offerings. The Title IX requirements are discussed in more detail in the Department's “Questions and Answers on Title IX and Single-Sex Elementary and Secondary Classes and Extracurricular Activities,” available at www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/faqs-title-ix-single-sex-201412.pdf.

    (b) Describe how the charter school will be managed;

    (c) Describe the objectives of the charter school and the methods by which the charter school will determine its progress toward achieving those objectives;

    Note:

    The applicant may choose to include a discussion of the project-specific performance measures and targets it develops in response to the Performance Measures requirement as part of its response to this application requirement. The applicant should review Section VI.4. Performance Measures of this notice for information on the requirements for developing project-specific performance measures and targets consistent with the objectives of the proposed project.

    (d) Describe the administrative relationship between the charter school and the authorized public chartering agency;

    (e) Describe how parents and other members of the community will be involved in the planning, program design, and implementation of the charter school;

    (f) Describe how the authorized public chartering agency will provide for continued operation of the charter school once the Federal grant has expired, if that agency determines that the charter school has met its objectives as described in paragraph (c) of this section;

    (g) If the charter school desires the Secretary to consider waivers under the authority of the CSP, include a request and justification for waivers of any Federal statutory or regulatory provisions that the applicant believes are necessary for the successful operation of the charter school, and a description of any State or local rules, generally applicable to public schools, that will be waived for, or otherwise not apply to, the school.

    Note:

    Each applicant for a Planning, Program Design, and Initial Implementation Grant under CFDA number 84.282B that is requesting a waiver of the requirement under section 5203(d)(3) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221b(d)(3)) to provide its authorized public chartering agency with notice, and a copy, of its CSP application, should indicate whether it has applied for a charter previously and, if so, the name of the authorized public chartering authority and the disposition of the charter application;

    (h) Describe how the grant funds will be used, including a description of how these funds will be used in conjunction with other Federal programs administered by the Secretary;

    (i) Describe how students in the community will be informed about the charter school and be given an equal opportunity to attend the charter school;

    Note:

    The applicant should provide a detailed description of its recruitment and admissions policies and practices, including a description of the lottery it plans to employ if more students apply for admission than can be accommodated. The applicant should also describe any current or planned use of a weighted lottery or exemptions of certain categories of students from the lottery and how the use of such weights or exemptions is consistent with State law and the CSP authorizing statute. For information on the CSP lottery requirement, including permissible exemptions from the lottery and the circumstances under which charter schools receiving CSP funds may use weighted lotteries, see Section E of the CSP Nonregulatory Guidance at www2.ed.gov/programs/charter/nonregulatory-guidance.html.

    (j) Describe how a charter school that is considered an LEA under State law, or an LEA in which a charter school is located, will comply with sections 613(a)(5) and 613(e)(1)(B) of the IDEA (for additional information on the IDEA, please see http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cstatute%2CI%2CB%2C613%2C); and

    (k) If the eligible applicant desires to use grant funds for dissemination activities under section 5202(c)(2)(c) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221a(c)(2)(C)), describe those activities and how those activities will involve charter schools and other public schools, LEAs, charter school developers, and potential charter school developers.

    Definitions

    The following definitions applicable to this competition are from the Supplemental Priorities and from 34 CFR 77.1(c).

    Ambitious means promoting continued, meaningful improvement for program participants or for other individuals or entities affected by the grant, or representing a significant advancement in the field of education research, practices, or methodologies. When used to describe a performance target, whether a performance target is ambitious depends upon the context of the relevant performance measure and the baseline for that measure.

    Baseline means the starting point from which performance is measured and targets are set.

    Essential domains of school readiness means the domains of language and literacy development, cognition and general knowledge (including early mathematics and early scientific development), approaches toward learning (including the utilization of the arts), physical well-being and motor development (including adaptive skills), and social and emotional development.

    Logic model (also referred to as theory of action) means a well-specified conceptual framework that identifies key components of the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the relationships among the key components and outcomes, theoretically and operationally.

    Performance measure means any quantitative indicator, statistic, or metric used to gauge program or project performance.

    Performance target means a level of performance that an applicant would seek to meet during the course of a project or as a result of a project.

    Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) (or the ultimate outcome if not related to students), the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice is designed to improve; consistent with the specific goals of a program.

    Rural local educational agency means a local educational agency (LEA) that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under Title VI, Part B of the ESEA. Eligible applicants may determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for these programs by referring to information on the Department's Web site at www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/reap.html.

    Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice that includes a logic model.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7221-7221i.

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The Supplemental Priorities.

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply only to institutions of higher education.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

    Estimated Available Funds: $4,000,000.

    The Administration has requested $375,000,000 for the CSP for FY 2016, of which an estimated $4,000,000 would be available for awards under this competition. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are inviting applications now to allow sufficient time to complete the grant review process early in FY 2016, if Congress appropriates funds for this program.

    Contingent upon the availability of funds and quality of applications, we may make additional awards later in FY 2016 or in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

    Note:

    All pre-award costs are incurred at the applicant's risk, and the Secretary is under no obligation to reimburse those costs if for any reason the applicant does not receive an award, or if the award is less than anticipated and inadequate to cover the costs (2 CFR 200.209).

    Note:

    The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, and the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, authorized the use of CSP funds for “grants that support preschool education in charter schools.” If Congress includes such language in FY 2016 appropriations, a grantee under this competition may use CSP funds to support preschool education in a charter school. For additional information and guidance regarding the use of CSP funds to support preschool education in charter schools, see “Guidance on the use of Funds to support Preschool Education,” released in November 2014, available at www2.ed.gov/programs/charter/csppreschoolfaqs.doc.

    Estimated Range of Awards (84.282B): $150,000 to $250,000 per year.

    Estimated Average Size of Awards (84.282B): $200,000 per year.

    Estimated Number of Awards (84.282B): 17-20.

    Estimated Range of Awards (84.282C): $100,000 to $300,000 per year.

    Estimated Average Size of Awards (84.282C): $200,000 per year.

    Estimated Number of Awards (84.282C): 1-3.

    Note:

    The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

    Project Period: Up to 36 months for planning, program design, and initial implementation grants under CFDA number 84.282B. Up to 24 months for dissemination grants under CFDA number 84.282C.

    Note:

    For planning, program design, and initial implementation grants awarded by the Secretary to non-SEA eligible applicants under CFDA number 84.282B, no more than 18 months may be used for planning and program design and no more than 24 months may be used for the initial implementation of a charter school.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants:

    a. Planning, Program Design, and Initial Implementation grants (CFDA number 84.282B): A developer that has (1) applied to an authorized public chartering authority to operate a charter school, as defined in section 5210(1) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221i(1)); and (2) provided adequate and timely notice to that authority under section 5203(d)(3) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221b(d)(3)). In accordance with section 5203(d)(3) of the ESEA, if the authorized public chartering authority to which a charter school proposal will be submitted has not been determined, an applicant for a pre-charter planning grant may include in its application a request for a waiver from the Secretary of the requirement that the eligible applicant provide its authorized public chartering authority timely notice, and a copy, of its application for CSP funds (20 U.S.C. 7221b(d)(3)).

    Note:

    Section 5210(2) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221i(2)) defines “developer” as an individual or group of individuals (including a public or private nonprofit organization), which may include teachers, administrators and other school staff, parents, or other members of the local community in which a charter school project will be carried out. Additionally, the charter school must be located in a State with a State statute specifically authorizing the establishment of charter schools (section 5210(1)(a) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221i(1)(a)) and in which the SEA does not have an application approved under the CSP (see section 5202(b) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221a(b)).

    b. Dissemination grants (CFDA number 84.282C): A charter school, as defined in section 5210(1) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221i(1)), that has been in operation for at least three consecutive years and has demonstrated overall success, including—

    (1) Substantial progress in improving student academic achievement;

    (2) High levels of parent satisfaction; and

    (3) The management and leadership necessary to overcome initial start-up problems and establish a thriving, financially viable charter school.

    Note:

    Consistent with section 5204(f)(6) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221c(f)(6)), a charter school may apply for funds to carry out dissemination activities, whether or not the charter school previously applied for or received funds under the CSP for planning, program design, or implementation.

    Note:

    In accordance with section 5202(b) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221a(b)), these competitions (CFDA numbers 84.282B and 84.282C) are limited to eligible applicants in States in which the SEA does not have an approved application under the CSP (or will not have an approved application as of October 1, 2015). States in which the SEA currently has an approved CSP application are California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. We will not consider applications of non-SEA eligible applicants from these States. In addition, after the deadline for transmittal of applications in this notice, the Department expects to approve additional SEAs under the FY 2015 CSP SEA competition (84.282A), which will be added to the list for which we will not accept applications of non-SEA eligible applicants. Thus, applications of non-SEA eligible applicants from these States will be withdrawn from consideration. While we realize that this approach presents challenges, it is intended to ensure that charter school developers in all eligible States have the opportunity to apply for grants for planning, program design, and initial implementation, either through an SEA subgrant or the CSP Non-SEA competition, in advance of the 2016-2017 year. FY 2015 SEA awards will be posted at www2.ed.gov/programs/charter/awards.html when available.

    Non-SEA eligible applicants that propose to use grant funds for planning, program design, and initial implementation, of charter schools must apply under CFDA number 84.282B. Non-SEA eligible applicants that request funds for dissemination activities must apply under CFDA 84.282C.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: Lourdes Rivery, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W255, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Telephone: (202) 453-7060 or by email: [email protected]

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

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section.

    2. a. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition.

    Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. The Secretary strongly encourages applicants to limit Part III to the equivalent of no more than 50 pages, using the following standards:

    • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

    • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

    • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

    • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

    The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, you must include all of the application narrative in Part III.

    b. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the CSP Non-SEA Grants for Planning, Program Design, and Initial Implementation and for Dissemination, an application may include business information that the applicant considers proprietary. The Department's regulations define “business information” in 34 CFR 5.11.

    Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.

    Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you feel is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).

    3. Submission Dates and Times:

    Applications Available: August 21, 2015.

    Dates of Pre-Application Webinars: The Department will hold a pre-application Webinar for prospective applicants on the following dates (all times are Washington, DC time):

    1. August 26, 2015, 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and

    2. September 9, 2015, 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Individuals interested in attending one of the Webinars are encouraged to pre-register by emailing their name, organization, contact information, and preferred Webinar date and time with the subject heading NON-SEA PRE-APPLICATION MEETING to [email protected] There is no registration fee for attending this Webinar.

    For further information about the pre-application Webinar, contact Lourdes Rivery, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W255, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Telephone: (202) 453-7060 or by email: [email protected]

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: October 6, 2015.

    Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to Section IV.

    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact in Section VII of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: December 21, 2015.

    4. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this program.

    5. Funding Restrictions:

    Use of Funds for Post-Award Planning and Design of the Educational Program and Initial Implementation of the Charter School. A non-SEA eligible applicant receiving a grant under CFDA number 84.282B may use the grant funds only for—

    (a) Post-award planning and design of the educational program, which may include (1) refinement of the desired educational results and of the methods for measuring progress toward achieving those results; and (2) professional development of teachers and other staff who will work in the charter school; and

    (b) Initial implementation of the charter school, which may include (1) informing the community about the school; (2) acquiring necessary equipment and educational materials and supplies; (3) acquiring or developing curriculum materials; and (4) other initial operational costs that cannot be met from State or local sources. (20 U.S.C. 7221c(f)(3)).

    Note:

    CSP funds awarded under CFDA number 84.282B may be used only for the planning and initial implementation of a charter school. As a general matter, the Secretary considers charter schools that have been in operation for more than three years to be past the initial implementation phase and, therefore, ineligible to receive CSP funds to support the initial implementation of a charter school.

    Use of Funds for Dissemination Activities. A charter school receiving a grant under CFDA number 84.282C may use the grant funds to assist other schools in adapting the charter school's program (or certain aspects of the charter school's program), or to disseminate information about the charter school, through such activities as—

    (a) Assisting other individuals with the planning and start-up of one or more new public schools, including charter schools, that are independent of the assisting charter school and the assisting charter school's developers, and that agree to be held to at least as high a level of accountability as the assisting charter school;

    (b) Developing partnerships with other public schools, including charter schools, designed to improve student academic achievement in each of the schools participating in the partnership;

    (c) Developing curriculum materials, assessments, and other materials that promote increased student achievement and are based on successful practices within the assisting charter school; and

    (d) Conducting evaluations and developing materials that document the successful practices of the assisting charter school and that are designed to improve student performance in other schools. (20 U.S.C. 7221c(f)(6))

    We reference additional regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section in this notice.

    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—

    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;

    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note:

    Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.

    7. Other Submission Requirements: Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.

    a. Electronic Submission of Applications.

    Applications for grants under the CSP, CFDA numbers 84.282B and 84.282C, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

    You may access the electronic grant application for the CSP at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.282, not 84.282B or 282C).

    Please note the following:

    • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

    • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.

    • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this program to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at www.G5.gov.

    • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.

    • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

    • You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.

    • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.

    • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).

    • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.

    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.

    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact in Section VII of this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted.

    Note:

    The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because—

    • You do not have access to the Internet; or

    • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and

    • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.

    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.

    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Lourdes Rivery, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W255, Washington, DC 20202-5970.

    FAX: (202) 205-5630.

    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.

    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:

    U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.282B or 84.282C), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

    (1) A private metered postmark.

    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.

    Note:

    The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:

    U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.282B or 84.282C), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:

    If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

    V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria:

    The selection criteria for this competition are from sections 5203, 5204, and 5210 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221b, 7221c, and 7221i) and 34 CFR 75.210.

    The selection criteria for applicants submitting applications under CFDA number 84.282B are listed in paragraph (a) of this section, and the selection criteria for applicants submitting applications under CFDA number 84.282C are listed in paragraph (b) of this section.

    (a) Selection Criteria for Planning, Program Design, and Initial Implementation Grants (CFDA number 84.282B).

    The following selection criteria are based on sections 5203, 5204, and 5210 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221b, 7221c, and 7221i) and 34 CFR 75.210. The maximum possible score for addressing all of the criteria in this section is 100 points. The maximum possible score for addressing each criterion is indicated in parentheses following the criterion. In evaluating an application for a Planning, Program Design, and Implementation Grant, the Secretary considers the following criteria:

    (1) Quality of the proposed curriculum and instructional practices (20 U.S.C. 7221c(b)(1)) (up to 15 points).

    Note:

    The Secretary encourages the applicant to describe the quality of the educational program to be implemented by the proposed charter school, including: How the program will enable all students to meet challenging State student academic achievement and content standards; the grade levels or ages of students to be served; and the curriculum and instructional practices to be used.

    (2) The extent to which the proposed project will assist educationally disadvantaged students and other students in meeting State academic content standards and State student academic achievement standards (20 U.S.C. 7221c(a)(1)) (up to 5 points).

    (3) The quality of the strategy for assessing achievement of the charter school's objectives (20 U.S.C. 7221c(a)(4)) (up to 15 points).

    Note:

    The Secretary encourages the applicant to propose a comprehensive plan for assessing the achievement of the charter school's objectives, inclusive of developing performance measures and performance targets for its proposed grant project that are consistent with those objectives. The applicant should clearly identify the project-specific performance measures and performance targets in its plan and should review Section VI.4. Performance Measures of this notice for information on the requirements for developing those performance measures and performance targets consistent with the objectives of the proposed project. The applicant may choose to include a discussion of the project-specific performance measures and targets it develops in response to the Performance Measures requirements when addressing this criterion.

    (4) The extent of community support and parental and community involvement (20 U.S.C. 7221c(b)(3); 20 U.S.C. 7221b(b)(3)(E)) (up to 10 points).

    The Secretary considers the extent of community support for, and parental and community involvement in, the charter school. In determining the extent of community support for, and parental and community involvement in, the charter school, the Secretary considers—

    (i) The extent of community support for the application (up to 5 points); and

    (ii) How parents and other members of the community will be involved in the planning, program design, and implementation of the charter school (up to 5 points).

    Note:

    In describing the extent to which the proposed project encourages parental and community involvement in the planning, program design, and implementation of the charter school, the Secretary encourages the applicant to describe how parents and other members of the community will be informed about the charter school and how students will be given an equal opportunity to attend the charter school.

    (5) Quality of project personnel (34 CFR 75.210(e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3)(ii)) (up to 22 points).

    The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability (up to 2 points).

    In addition, the Secretary considers the qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel (up to 20 points).

    Note:

    The Secretary encourages the applicant to provide evidence of the key project personnel's training and experience in activities related to the planning, program design, and initial implementation of a charter school.

    (6) Quality of the management plan (34 CFR 75.210(g)(1) and (g)(2)(i)) (up to 15 points).

    The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.

    (7) Existence and quality of a charter or performance contract between the charter school and its authorized public chartering agency (20 U.S.C. 7221i(1)(L)) (up to 15 points).

    The Secretary considers—

    (i) Whether a written charter or performance contract between the charter school and its authorized public chartering agency exists; and

    (ii) The extent to which the charter or performance contract describes how student performance will be measured in the charter school pursuant to State assessments that are required of other schools and pursuant to any other assessments mutually agreeable to the authorized public chartering agency and the charter school (up to 5 points).

    Note:

    In considering whether there is a written charter or performance contract between the charter school and its authorized public chartering agency, the Secretary will consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether the school has received preliminary, conditional, or other intermediate approval to operate from the authorized public chartering authority, if applicable. An applicant should submit documentation regarding the status of any such approval and clearly describe the authorizer's approval process under applicable State law.

    (8) The degree of flexibility afforded by the SEA and, if applicable, the LEA to the charter school (20 U.S.C. 7221c(b)(2)) (up to 3 points).

    Note:

    The Secretary encourages the applicant to describe the flexibility afforded under its State's charter school law in terms of establishing an administrative relationship between the charter school and the authorized public chartering agency, and whether charter schools are exempt from significant State or local rules that inhibit the flexible operation and management of public schools.

    (b) Selection Criteria for Dissemination Grants (CFDA number 84.282C).

    The following selection criteria are based on sections 5204 and 5210(1)(L) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221c and 7221i(1)(L)) and from 34 CFR 75.210. The maximum possible score for addressing all the criteria in this section is 100 points. The maximum possible score for addressing each criterion is indicated in parentheses following the criterion. In evaluating an application for a dissemination grant, the Secretary considers the following criteria:

    (1) Quality of the project design (34 CFR 75.210(c)(1) and (c)(2)(xxix) (up to 10 points).

    The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed project is supported by strong theory (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)) (up to 10 points).

    (2) Quality of the proposed dissemination activities and the likelihood that those activities will improve student achievement (20 U.S.C. 7221c(b)(7)) (up to 10 points).

    Note:

    The applicant should review the Performance Measures section of this notice for information on the requirements for developing project-specific performance measures and targets consistent with those objectives. The applicant may choose to include a discussion of the project-specific performance measures and targets it develops in response to the Performance Measures requirements when addressing this criterion.

    (3) Existence and quality of a charter or performance contract between the charter school and its authorized public chartering agency (20 U.S.C. 7221i(1)(L)) (up to 5 points). The Secretary considers—

    (i) Whether a written charter or performance contract between the charter school and its authorized public chartering agency exists (up to 1 point); and

    (ii) The extent to which the charter or performance contract describes how student performance will be measured in the charter school pursuant to State assessments that are required of other schools and pursuant to any other assessments mutually agreeable to the authorized public chartering agency and the charter school (up to 4 points).

    (4) Demonstration of success (20 U.S.C. 7221c(f)(6)(A)) (up to 30 points).

    The extent to which the school has demonstrated overall success, including—

    (i) Substantial progress in improving student academic achievement (up to 20 points);

    (ii) High levels of parent satisfaction (up to 5 points); and

    (iii) The management and leadership necessary to overcome initial start-up problems and establish a thriving, financially viable charter school (up to 5 points).

    Note:

    The Secretary encourages the applicant to provide performance data for the past three years to demonstrate student academic achievement (while maintaining the appropriate standards that protect personally identifiable information).

    (5) Significance (34 CFR 75.210(b)(2)(xii)) (up to 15 points).

    The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the results of the proposed project are to be disseminated in ways that will enable others to use the information or strategies.

    (6) Quality of project personnel (34 CFR 75.210(e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3)(i)) (up to 15 points).

    The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability (up to 3 points).

    In addition, the Secretary considers the qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator (up to 12 points).

    (7) Quality of the management plan (34 CFR 75.210(g)(1) and (g)(2)(i)) (up to 15 points).

    The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.

    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    3. Special Conditions: Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

    4. Performance Measures:

    (a) Program Performance Measures. The goal of the CSP is to support the creation and development of a large number of high-quality charter schools that are free from State or local rules that inhibit flexible operation, are held accountable for enabling students to reach challenging State performance standards, and are open to all students. The Secretary has two performance indicators to measure progress toward this goal: (1) The number of charter schools in operation around the Nation, and (2) the percentage of fourth- and eighth-grade charter school students who are achieving at or above the proficient level on State assessments in mathematics and reading/language arts. Additionally, the Secretary has established the following measure to examine the efficiency of the CSP: Federal cost per student in implementing a successful school (defined as a school in operation for three or more consecutive years).

    All grantees must submit an annual performance report with information that is responsive to these performance measures.

    (b) Project-Specific Performance Measures. Applicants must propose project-specific performance measures and performance targets consistent with the objectives of the proposed project. Applications must provide the following information as required under 34 CFR 75.110(b) and (c):

    (1) Performance measures. How each proposed performance measure would accurately measure the performance of the project and how the proposed performance measure would be consistent with the performance measures established for the program funding the competition.

    (2) Baseline data. (i) Why each proposed baseline is valid; or (ii) If the applicant has determined that there are no established baseline data for a particular performance measure, an explanation of why there is no established baseline and of how and when, during the project period, the applicant would establish a valid baseline for the performance measure.

    (3) Performance targets. Why each proposed performance target is ambitious yet achievable compared to the baseline for the performance measure and when, during the project period, the applicant would meet the performance target(s).

    Note:

    The Secretary encourages the applicant to consider developing project-specific performance measures and targets tied to its grant activities (for instance, if grant funds will support professional development for teachers and other staff, the applicant should include measures related to the outcomes for the professional development), as well as to student academic achievement during the grant period. The project-specific performance measures should be sufficient to gauge the progress throughout the grant period, show results by the end of the grant period, and, for applicants for Dissemination Grants (CFDA number 84.282C), be included in the logic model supporting a strong theory under Selection Criterion 1, Quality of project design.

    For technical assistance in developing effective performance measures, applicants are encouraged to review information provided by the Department's Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs). The RELs seek to build the capacity of States and school districts to incorporate data and research into education decision-making. Each REL provides research support and technical assistance to its region but makes learning opportunities available to educators everywhere. For example, the REL Northeast and Islands has created the following resource on logic models: http://relpacific.mcrel.org/resources/elm-app.

    (4) Data Collection and Reporting. The applicant must also describe in the application: (i) The data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, and (ii) the applicant's capacity to collect and report reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.

    Note:

    If the applicant does not have experience with the collection and reporting of performance data through other projects or research, the applicant should provide other evidence of its capacity to successfully carry out data collection and reporting for the proposed project.

    5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application. In making a continuation grant, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    6. Project Director's Meeting: Applicants approved for funding under this competition must attend a two-day meeting for project directors during each year of the project. An applicant may include the cost of attending this meeting in its proposed budget.

    VII. Agency Contact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lourdes Rivery, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W255, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Emails and telephone numbers: [email protected] or (202) 205-3525; [email protected] or (202) 453-7060.

    If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    VIII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in Section VII of this notice.

    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.

    Dated: August 18, 2015. Nadya Chinoy Dabby, Associate Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20723 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge Reservation AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Open Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, September 9, 2015; 6:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Department of Energy Information Center, Office of Science and Technical Information, 1 Science.gov Way, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melyssa P. Noe, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 241-3315; Fax (865) 576-0956 or email: [email protected] or check the Web site at http://energy.gov/orem/services/community-engagement/oak-ridge-site-specific-advisory-board.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

    Tentative Agenda

    • Welcome and Announcements

    • Comments from the Deputy Designated Federal Officer

    • Comments from the DOE, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, and Environmental Protection Agency Liaisons

    • Public Comment Period

    • DOE Presentation

    • Additions/Approval of Agenda

    • Motions/Approval of June 10, 2015 Meeting Minutes

    • Status of Recommendations with DOE

    • Committee Reports

    • Federal Coordinator Report

    • Adjourn

    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Oak Ridge, 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 Melyssa P. Noe at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to the agenda item should contact Melyssa P. Noe at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Melyssa P. Noe at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: http://energy.gov/orem/services/community-engagement/oak-ridge-site-specific-advisory-board.

    Issued at Washington, DC on August 17, 2015. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20710 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PF15-26-000] Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC, Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Stage 3 Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC's (CCL's) and Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P.'s (CCPL's) Stage 3 Project (Project) involving the expansion of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) liquefaction and storage capacity of the previously approved Corpus Christi Liquefaction Project (Liquefaction Project) (Docket Nos. CP12-507-000 and CP12-508-000); and new associated bi-directional interstate natural gas pipeline facilities (Stage 3 Pipeline) in San Patricio County, Texas. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the Project is in the public convenience and necessity.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the Project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. The Commission staff will also use the scoping process to help determine whether preparation of an environmental impact statement is more appropriate for this Project based upon the potential significance of the anticipated levels of impact. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before September 16, 2015.

    If you sent comments on this Project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on June 9, 2015, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. PF15-26-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this Project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the Project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.

    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

    Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected] Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

    1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing” as the filing type; or

    3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the Project docket number (PF15-26-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Please note this is not your only public input opportunity; please refer to the review process flow chart in Appendix 1.1

    1 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.

    Summary of the Planned Project

    CCL and CCPL plan to expand the LNG liquefaction and storage capacity of the recently authorized Liquefaction Project. The planned Project would include the addition of two liquefaction trains, each capable of processing up to approximately 700 million cubic feet per day of natural gas, one 160,000 cubic meter (m3) full containment LNG tank, one 22-mile-long, 42-inch-diameter pipeline, additional compression at the Sinton Compressor Station, and appurtenant facilities located within San Patricio County, Texas. According to CCL and CCPL, its Project would expand the Liquefaction Project's production capabilities and increase the sale of domestic natural gas as LNG to the global market.

    The Stage 3 Project would consist of the following facilities:

    • LNG Facilities:

    ○ Two LNG liquefaction trains, each capable of producing a maximum of approximately 5 million tonnes per annum of LNG;

    ○ One 160,000 m3 full containment LNG storage tank;

    ○ Interconnecting piping and an LNG transfer line;

    ○ Control and safety systems; and

    ○ Utilities, infrastructure, and support systems.

    • Pipeline Facilities:

    ○ An approximately 22-mile-long, 42-inch-diameter pipeline originating north of the City of Sinton, Texas and terminating at the Stage 3 Project LNG facilities;

    ○ Two electric motor driven compressor units to provide a total of approximately 32 megawatts of additional compression at the existing Sinton Compressor Station; and

    ○ Meter and regulator (M&R) stations, launcher/receiver facilities, and mainline valves (MLVs) at various locations along the planned pipeline route.

    The general location of the Project facilities is shown in Appendix 2.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the LNG facilities would require approximately 826 acres of land, of which 658 acres will have been impacted by the previously authorized Liquefaction Project. Following construction, approximately 368 acres of land would be maintained for permanent operation of the Project's LNG facilities, of which 351 acres was previously approved for operation of the Liquefaction Project facilities. CCL and CCPL are still in the design phase of the pipeline facilities, and workspace requirements for the M&R stations, launcher/receiver facilities, and MLVs have not been finalized. However, construction of the 42-inch pipeline, which would generally parallel the previously authorized 48-inch Corpus Christi Pipeline, and planned facilities at the Sinton Compressor Station would temporarily disturb a total of approximately 388 acres of land. Following construction, CCL and CCPL would maintain approximately 110 acres for operation of the new permanent pipeline easement. Permanent land impacts associated with operation of the planned facilities at the Sinton Compressor Station have yet to be determined.

    The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us 2 to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.

    2 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned Project under these general headings:

    • geology and soils;

    • land use;

    • water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;

    • cultural resources;

    • vegetation and wildlife;

    • socioeconomics;

    • air quality and noise;

    • endangered and threatened species;

    • public safety; and

    • cumulative impacts.

    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned Project or portions of the Project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.

    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2 of this notice.

    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this Project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.3 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice. Currently no agencies have expressed their intention to participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA to satisfy their NEPA responsibilities related to this Project.

    3 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.

    Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the Texas Historical Commission which has been given the role of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for Texas, and to solicit the SHPO's review and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the Project's potential effects on historic properties.4 We will define the Project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO(s) as the Project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads). Our EA for this Project will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.

    4 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

    Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and the environmental information provided by CCL and CCPL that we think deserves attention. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis. The issues identified to date include impacts on:

    • threatened and endangered species;

    • vegetation, wildlife, and fisheries;

    • land use and aesthetics;

    • socioeconomics;

    • public safety and reliability;

    • air quality and noise;

    • water use and quality; and

    • cumulative impacts.

    Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the Project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned Project.

    If we publish and distribute the EA copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (Appendix 3).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    Once CCL and CCPL file their application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Motions to intervene are more fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the “Document-less Intervention Guide” under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a formal application for the Project.

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF15-26). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: August 17, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20746 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1190-000.

    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company, MidAmerican Energy Services, LLC.

    Description: Request for Temporary Waiver, Request for Expedited Action, and Request for Shortened Notice Period of MidAmerican Energy Company and MidAmerican Energy Services, LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/12/15.

    Accession Number: 20150812-5199.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20651 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC15-12-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725); Comment Request; Extension AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-725 [Certification of Electric Reliability Organization; Procedures for Electric Reliability Standards].

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due October 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC15-12-000) by either of the following methods:

    • eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp

    • Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], telephone at (202) 502-8663, and fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: FERC-725, Certification of Electric Reliability Organization; Procedures for Electric Reliability Standards

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0225

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-725 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

    Abstract: The FERC-725 information collection contains the following information collection elements:

    Self Assessment and Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) Application: The Commission requires the ERO to submit to FERC a performance assessment report every five years. The next assessment is due in 2019. Each Regional Entity submits a performance assessment report to the ERO. Submitting an application to become an ERO is also part of this collection.1

    1 The Commission does not expect any new ERO applications to be submitted in the next five years and is not including any burden for this requirement in the burden estimate. FERC still seeks to renew the regulations pertaining to a new ERO application under this renewal but is expecting the burden to be zero for the foreseeable future. 18 CFR 39.3 contains the regulation pertaining to ERO applications.

    Reliability Assessments: 18 CFR 39.11 requires the ERO to assess the reliability and adequacy of the Bulk-Power System in North America. Subsequently, the ERO must report to the Commission on its findings. Regional entities perform similar assessments within individual regions. Currently, the ERO submits to FERC three assessments each year: long term, winter, and summer. In addition, NERC also submits various other assessments as needed.

    Reliability Standards Development: Under Section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the ERO is charged with developing Reliability Standards. Regional Entities may also develop regional specific standards. Reliability Standards are one of the three principal mechanisms provided to FERC to ensure reliability on the Bulk-Power System.

    Reliability Compliance: Reliability Standards are mandatory and enforceable upon approval by FERC. In addition to the specific information collection requirements contained in each Reliability Standard (cleared under other information collections), there are general compliance, monitoring and enforcement information collection requirements imposed on applicable entities. Audits, spot checks, self-certifications, exception data submittals, violation reporting, and mitigation plan confirmation are included in this area.

    Stakeholder Survey: The ERO uses a stakeholder survey to solicit feedback from registered entities 2 in preparation for its three year and five year self-performance assessment. The Commission assumes that the ERO will perform another survey prior to the 2019 self- assessment.

    2 A “registered entity” is an entity that is registered with the ERO. All Bulk-Power System owners, operators and users are required to register with the ERO. Registration is the basis for determining the Reliability Standards with which an entity must comply. See http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=3%7C25 for more details.

    Other Reporting: This category refers to all other reporting requirements imposed on the ERO or regional entities in order to comply with the Commission's regulations. For example, FERC may require NERC to submit a special reliability assessment. This category is mentioned to capture these types of one-time filings required of NERC or the Regions.

    The Commission implements its responsibilities through 18 CFR part 39. Without the FERC-725 information, the Commission, ERO, and Regional Entities will not have the data needed to determine whether sufficient and appropriate measures are being taken to ensure the reliability of the nation's electric grid.

    Type of Respondents: ERO and regional entities

    Estimate of Annual Burden:3 The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    3 The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    FERC-725—Certification of the ERO; Procedures for Electric Reliability Standards Type of respondent Type of reporting
  • requirement
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number of responses Average
  • burden hours
  • & cost per
  • response
  • Estimated total annual burden
  • & cost
  • (A) (B) 4 (A) × (B) = (C) (D) (C) × (D) Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) 1 Self-Assessment .2 .2 7,800
  • 5 $574,704
  • 1,560
  • $114,941
  • Reliability Assessments 5.5 5.5 15,600
  • 5 $1,149,408
  • 85,800
  • $6,321,744
  • Reliability Compliance 2 2 12,480
  • 5 $919,526
  • 24,960
  • $1,839,053
  • Standards Development 1 1 28,080
  • 6 $1,865,916
  • 28,080
  • $1,865,916
  • Other Reporting 1 1 1 2080
  • 7 $270,130
  • 2,080
  • $270,130
  • Regional Entities Self-Assessment .2 1.6 16,640
  • 6 $1,105,728
  • 26,624
  • $1,769,164
  • Reliability Assessments 1 8 15,600
  • 6 $1,036,620
  • 124,800
  • $8,292,960
  • Reliability Compliance 1 8 40,560
  • 5 $2,988,461
  • 324,480
  • $23,907,688
  • Standards Development 1 8 2,340
  • 6 $155,493
  • 18,720
  • $1,243,944
  • Other Reporting 8 1 8 1,040
  • 7 $135,065
  • 8,320
  • $1,080,520
  • Registered Entities Stakeholder Survey .2 289 8
  • 5 $589
  • 2,312
  • $170,221
  • Reliability Compliance estimated 1446 1 1446 400
  • 5 $29,472
  • 578,400
  • $42,616,512
  • Subtotals: ERO
  • Regional
  • Registered
  • N/A 142,480 hrs.
  • 502,944 hrs.
  • 580,712 hrs.
  • Total Burden Hours 1,226,136 hrs. Total Cost $89,492,791

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    4 In all instances below where the number of responses per respondent is “1” the Commission acknowledges that actual number of responses varies and cannot be estimated clearly.

    5 Uses the weighted hourly average wage (salary plus benefits) for electrical engineers and lawyers obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (data for May 2014, posted on 4/1/2015 at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm): $91.82/hour. The weighted average used the following calculation: [(0.20) * ($129.87) + (0.60) * ($66.45) + (0.2) * ($39.18)] = $73.68. $129.87/hour is the wage for lawyers. $66.45/hour is the wage for engineers. $39.17/hour is the wage for office and administrative support. Occupation codes are 23-0000, 17-2071, and 43-0000 respectively.

    6 Uses the hourly average wage (salary plus benefits) for electrical engineers obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (data for May 2014, posted on 4/1/2015 at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm): $66.45/hour. Occupation code is 17-2071.

    7 Uses the hourly average wage (salary plus benefits) for lawyers obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (data for May 2014, posted on 4/1/2015 at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm): $129.87/hour. Occupation code is 23-0000.

    Dated: August 17, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20744 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD14-15-000] Common Performance Metrics; Request for Information on Common Performance Metrics for RTOs and ISOs and Utilities Outside RTO and ISO Regions

    On August 26, 2014, Commission Staff issued a “Common Metrics Report,” establishing 30 common metrics for independent system operators (ISOs), regional transmission organizations (RTOs), and utilities in non-ISO/RTO regions. In that report, Commission Staff indicated that upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for additional data collection, a notice would be issued requesting that the ISOs, RTOs, and participating utilities in non-ISO/RTO regions provide performance information on the common metrics on a schedule to be specified in the notice.1

    1Common Metrics Commission Staff Report, Docket No. AD14-15-000, at 4 (Aug. 26, 2014).

    Consistent with the OMB-approved data collection 2 and past practice regarding this effort, ISOs, RTOs, and utilities in non-ISO/RTO regions are encouraged to submit information responsive to the 30 common metrics listed in the August 2014 report. Information submitted should cover the 2010-2014 period, and should be submitted by October 30, 2015.3 Commission staff plans to contact representatives of the ISOs, RTOs, and utilities in non-ISO/RTO regions that have previously participated in this effort.

    2 On August 6, 2015, OMB approved a request for reinstatement and revision of information collection FERC-922, “Performance Metrics for ISOs, RTOs and Regions Outside ISOs and RTOs” (OMB Control No. 1902-0262).

    3 Information should be submitted in docket no. AD14-15-000. Submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with the submission guidelines described at: http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/submission-guide.asp. Submissions must be in an acceptable file format as described at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary/accept-file-formats.asp. The numeric values corresponding to all charts and tables containing metrics must be submitted in an accompanying file, in one of the following formats: Microsoft Office 2003/2007/2010: Excel (.xls or .xlsx), or ASCII Comma Separated Value (.csv).

    For further information, please contact: Eric Krall, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6180, [email protected]

    Dated: August 17, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20743 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP09-6-001; CP09-7-001; Docket No. CP13-507-000] LNG Development Company, LLC; Oregon Pipeline Company, LLC; Northwest Pipeline LLC; Notice of Public Meetings for Comments On the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Oregon LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project and Washington Expansion Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Oregon LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project proposed by LNG Development Company, LLC and Oregon Pipeline Company, LLC and the Washington Expansion Project proposed by Northwest Pipeline LLC in the above-referenced dockets. The draft EIS was issued on August 5, 2015, and the public comment period for the document will end on October 6, 2015. The notice of availability for the draft EIS clarifies the methods to submit written and electronic comments. In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend one of the public comment meetings its staff will conduct in the project area to receive oral comments on the draft EIS. Transcripts of the meetings will be available for review in eLibrary under the project docket numbers. The meeting times and locations are provided below.

    Date and time Location September 14, 2015, 6 p.m.-9 p.m Kent Senior Activity Center, 600 East Smith Street, Kent, Washington 98030, (253) 856-5150. September 15, 2015, 6 p.m.-9 p.m Sedro-Woolley Community Center, 703 Pacific Street, Sedro-Woolley, Washington 98284, (360) 855-3568. September 16, 2015, 6 p.m.-9 p.m Snohomish Senior Center, 506 4th Street, Snohomish, WA 98290, (360) 568-0934. September 17, 2015, 6 p.m.-9 p.m Southwest Washington Fairgrounds-Community Events Building, 2555 N National Avenue, Chehalis, Washington 98532, (360) 736-6072. September 21, 2015, 1 p.m.-4 p.m Clatsop County Fairgrounds-Exhibit Hall, 92937 Walluski Loop, Astoria, Oregon 97103, (503) 325-4600. September 21, 2015, 6 p.m.-9 p.m Clatsop County Fairgrounds-Exhibit Hall, 92937 Walluski Loop, Astoria, Oregon 97103, (503) 325-4600. September 22, 2015, 6 p.m.-9 p.m Vernonia High School-Commons Area, 1000 Missouri Avenue, Vernonia, Oregon 97064, (503) 429-1333. September 23, 2015, 6 p.m.-9 p.m Summit Grove Lodge, 30810 NE Timmen Road, Ridgefield, WA 98642, 360-263-6623. September 24, 2015, 6 p.m.-9 p.m Red Lion Hotel, 510 S Kelso Drive, Kelso, Washington 98626, (360) 636-4400.

    The Commission's staff will begin the sign-up of speakers one-half hour before the meeting begins. The comment meeting will begin with a brief description of our environmental review process by Commission staff, after which speakers will be called. The meeting will end once all speakers have provided their comments or at the end time for each meeting stated above, whichever comes first. If a significant number of people are interested in providing verbal comments, a time limit of three minutes may be implemented for each commenter to ensure all those wishing to comment have the opportunity to do so within the designated meeting time. Speakers should structure their oral comments accordingly. If time limits are implemented, they will be strictly enforced to ensure that as many individuals as possible are given an opportunity to comment. It is important to note that oral comments hold the same weight as written or electronically submitted comments.

    Dated: August 17, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20742 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13511-002] Igiugig Village Council; Notice Concluding Pre-Filing Process and Approving Process Plan and Schedule

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File an Application for a Hydrokinetic Pilot Project.

    b. Project No.: 13511-002.

    c. Date Filed: April 1, 2015.

    d. Submitted By: Igiugig Village Council (Igiugig).

    e. Name of Project: Igiugig Hydrokinetic Project.

    f. Location: On the Kvichak River in the Lake and Peninsula Borough, near the town of Igiugig, Alaska. The project would not occupy any federal lands.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 and 5.5 of the Commission's regulations.

    h. Applicant Contact: AlexAnna Salmon, President, Igiugig Village Council, P.O. Box 4008, Igiugig, Alaska 99613; (907) 533-3211.

    i. FERC Contact: Dianne Rodman (202) 502-6077.

    j. Igiugig has filed with the Commission: (1) A notice of intent to file an application for a pilot hydrokinetic hydropower project and a draft license application with monitoring plans; (2) a request for waivers of certain Integrated Licensing Process regulations necessary for expedited processing of a license application for a hydrokinetic pilot project; (3) a proposed process plan and schedule; and (4) a request to be designated as the non-federal representative for section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation and for section 106 consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act.

    k. A notice was issued on April 23, 2015, soliciting comments on the draft license application from agencies and stakeholders. Comments were filed by non-governmental organizations and individuals.

    l. On April 23, 2015, Igiugig was designated as the non-federal representative for section 7 consultation under the ESA and for section 106 consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act.

    m. The proposed Igiugig Hydrokinetic Project would consist of: (1) An in-stream 20- kilowatt (kW), 64-foot-long, 11-foot-high, 43-foot-wide pontoon-mounted RivGen Power System Turbine Generator Unit (TGU) in Phase 1; (2) an additional in-stream 20-kW pontoon-mounted TGU in Phase 2; (3) two anchoring systems consisting of a 13,000-pound anchor, chain, shackles, and 150 feet of mooring; (4) a 375-foot-long, coated and weighted combined power, data, and environmental monitoring cable from the TGU for Phase 1; and a 675-foot-long cable from the TGU for Phase 2; (5) an existing 10-foot-long by 8-foot-wide shore station for housing project electronics and Issue biological assessment February 15, 2015.

    n. controls; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to have an annual generation of 409,504 kilowatt-hours.

    o. The pre-filing process has been concluded and the requisite regulations have been waived such that the process and schedule indicated below can be implemented.

    p. The post-filing process will be conducted pursuant to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as needed.

    Milestones Dates Final license application expected November 2, 2015. Issue notice of acceptance and ready for environmental analysis and request for interventions November 17, 2015. Recommendations, Conditions, Comments and Interventions due December 17, 2015. Issue notice of availability of environmental assessment February 15, 2016. Issue biological assessment February 15, 2016. Comments due and 10(j) resolution, if needed March 16, 2016.

    q. Register online at http://ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be notified via email of new filing and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: August 17, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20745 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL 9932-99-Region 3] Notice of Administrative Settlement Agreement Pursuant to Section 122(H) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as Amended AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given that a proposed administrative settlement agreement for recovery of response costs (“Proposed Agreement”) associated with the Lin Electric Superfund Site, Bluefield, Mercer County, West Virginia (“Site”) was executed by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and is now subject to public comment, after which EPA may modify or withdraw its consent if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the Proposed Agreement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Proposed Agreement would resolve potential EPA claims under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, against Danny E. Lusk and Gordon M. Lusk, (“Settling Parties”). The Proposed Agreement would require Settling Parties to reimburse EPA $21,358.00 for response costs incurred by EPA for the Site.

    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the Proposed Agreement. EPA's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before thirty (30) days after the date of publication of this notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Proposed Agreement and additional background information relating to the Proposed Agreement are available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy of the Proposed Agreement may be obtained from Robin E. Eiseman (3RC41), Senior Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Comments should reference the “Lin Electric Superfund Site, Proposed Settlement Agreement” and “EPA Docket No. CERC-03-2015-0182CR,” and should be forwarded to Robin E. Eiseman at the above address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robin E. Eiseman (3RC41), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215) 814-2612; [email protected]

    Dated: August 17, 2015. Karen Melvin, Acting Director, Hazardous Site Cleanup Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20724 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9932-91-Region 10] Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Industrial Activities Availability for Idaho, Federal Operators in Washington, and the Spokane Tribe AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of corrections to the 2015 Multi-Sector General Permit.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) previously announced the issuance of the NPDES general permit for storm water discharges from industrial activity, also referred to as the 2015 Multi-Sector General Permit (2015 MSGP), in the June 16, 2015 Federal Register. This action provides notice of final 2015 MSGP issuance for Idaho; federal operators in Washington; and the Spokane Tribe.

    DATES:

    The 2015 MSGP became effective in Idaho on August 12, 2015; for federal operators in Washington on July 21, 2015; and for the Spokane Tribe on August 12, 2015. These effective dates provide dischargers with the immediate opportunity to comply with Clean Water Act requirements in light of the expiration of the 2008 MSGP on September 29, 2013. The 2015 MSGP and the authorization to discharge will expire everywhere at midnight on June 4, 2019. Within 90 days of the permit's date of issuance, operators of existing facilities must submit an NOI for coverage under the new permit. Therefore, for existing facilities located in areas in the State of Idaho (except for Indian country) NOIs must be submitted by no later than November 10, 2015. For existing facilities in the State of Washington operated by or at the behest of a Federal Operator, NOIs must be submitted by no later than October 19, 2015.

    In accordance with 40 CFR part 23, this permit shall be considered issued for the purpose of judicial review on the date of this publication. Under section 509(b) of the Clean Water Act, judicial review of this general permit can be had by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals within 120 days after the permit is considered issued for purposes of judicial review. Under section 509(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act, the requirements in this permit may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings to enforce these requirements. In addition, this permit may not be challenged in other agency proceedings. Deadlines for submittal of notices of intent for projects located in the areas listed above are provided as part of this action.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information on the MSGP, contact the appropriate EPA Regional office listed in Section I.C, or you can send an email to [email protected] You may also contact Bryan Rittenhouse, EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management at 202-564-0577 or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This supplementary information is organized as follows:

    Table of Contents I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. How can I get copies of these documents and other related information? C. Who are the EPA regional contacts for this permit? II. Summary of Permit Actions A. Issuance of 2015 MSGP for Additional States and Tribes III. Compliance with Other Statutes I. General Information

    EPA summarized the MSGP permit conditions, as well as changes from the previous version of the MSGP, in the Federal Register notice at 80 FR 34403, June 16, 2015.

    A. Does this action apply to me?

    The final 2015 construction general permit (also referred to as “MSGP” or “2015 MSGP”) applies to the following industrial activities:

    Sector A—Timber Products.

    Sector B—Paper and Allied Products Manufacturing.

    Sector C—Chemical and Allied Products Manufacturing.

    Sector D—Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials Manufactures and Lubricant Manufacturers.

    Sector E—Glass, Clay, Cement, Concrete, and Gypsum Product Manufacturing.

    Sector F—Primary Metals.

    Sector G—Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing).

    Sector H—Coal Mines and Coal Mining-Related Facilities.

    Sector I—Oil and Gas Extraction.

    Sector J—Mineral Mining and Dressing.

    Sector K—Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage or Disposal.

    Sector L—Landfills and Land Application Sites.

    Sector M—Automobile Salvage Yards.

    Sector N—Scrap Recycling Facilities.

    Sector O—Steam Electric Generating Facilities.

    Sector P—Land Transportation.

    Sector Q—Water Transportation.

    Sector R—Ship and Boat Building or Repairing Yards.

    Sector S—Air Transportation Facilities.

    Sector T—Treatment Works.

    Sector U—Food and Kindred Products.

    Sector V—Textile Mills, Apparel, and other Fabric Products Manufacturing.

    Sector W—Furniture and Fixtures.

    Sector X—Printing and Publishing.

    Sector Y—Rubber, Miscellaneous Plastic Products, and Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries.

    Sector Z—Leather Tanning and Finishing.

    Sector AA—Fabricated Metal Products.

    Sector AB—Transportation Equipment, Industrial or Commercial Machinery.

    Sector AC—Electronic, Electrical, Photographic and Optical Goods.

    Sector AD—Reserved for Facilities Not Covered Under Other Sectors and Designated by the Director.

    If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult one of the persons listed for technical information in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    B. How can I get copies of these documents and other related information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0803. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Although all documents in the docket are listed in an index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Publicly available docket materials are available in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room, open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.

    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the United States government on-line source for Federal regulations at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Electronic versions of this final permit and fact sheet are available on EPA's NPDES Web site at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/stormwater/EPA-Multi-Sector-General-Permit-MSGP.cfm.

    An electronic version of the public docket is available through the EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the Docket Facility identified in Section I.B.1.

    C. Who are the EPA regional contacts for this permit?

    For EPA Region 10, contact Margaret McCauley at tel.: (206) 553-1772 or email at [email protected]

    II. Summary of Permit Actions A. Issuance of 2015 MSGP for Additional States and Tribes

    On June 4, 2015, EPA issued the 2015 MSGP for most of the areas where EPA is the permitting authority. Because EPA had not yet received Clean Water Act Section 401 certifications from certain states and tribes, EPA was not able to issue the final MSGP in these areas. The following states and tribe were affected:

    • The State of Idaho;

    • Federal operators in Washington;

    • The Spokane Tribe.

    Now that EPA has received the required Clean Water Act 401 certifications, the Agency has issued the final 2015 MSGP for these areas. Pursuant to CWA section 401(d), the limitations and requirements contained in these certifications are now conditions of the 2015 MSGP and are included in Part 9.10.3, 9.10.6.7, and 9.10.7 of the permit.

    The complete text of the updated 2015 MSGP as well as additional information on Webcasts, Guidance, and Other Implementation Assistance can be obtained through EPA's Web site at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/stormwater/EPA-Multi-Sector-General-Permit-MSGP.cfm.

    III. Compliance With Other Statutes

    EPA summarized the Agency's compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, Executive Order 12898, and Executive Order 13175 in the 80 FR 304403, June 16, 2015 Federal Register notice. See 77 FR 12292-12293, February 29, 2012, for more information.

    Authority:

    Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Daniel D. Opalski, Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, EPA Region 10.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20725 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Federal Advisory Committee Act; Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC or Commission) Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) V will hold its second meeting.

    DATES:

    September 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305 (Commission Meeting Room), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeffery Goldthorp, Designated Federal Officer, (202) 418-1096 (voice) or [email protected] (email); or Suzon Cameron, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, (202) 418-1916 (voice) or [email protected] (email).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meeting will be held on September 21, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    The CSRIC is a Federal Advisory Committee that will provide recommendations to the FCC regarding best practices and actions the FCC can take to help ensure the security, reliability, and interoperability of communications systems. On March 19, 2015, the FCC, pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, renewed the charter for the CSRIC for a period of two years through March 18, 2017. The meeting on September 21, 2015, will be the second meeting of the CSRIC under the current charter. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Commission will provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the Internet from the FCC's Web page at http://www.fcc.gov/live. The public may submit written comments before the meeting to Jeffery Goldthorp, CSRIC Designated Federal Officer, by email to [email protected] or U.S. Postal Service Mail to Jeffery Goldthorp, Associate Bureau Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room 7-A325, Washington, DC 20554.

    Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to [email protected] or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty). Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. In addition, please include a way the FCC can contact you if it needs more information. Please allow at least five days' advance notice; last-minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20680 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to all Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10437, Palm Desert National Bank Palm Desert, CA

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for 10437, Palm Desert National Bank, Palm Desert, CA (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Palm Desert National Bank on April 27, 2012. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20625 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination: 4650-Hamilton Bank, N. A. Miami, Florida

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 4650, Hamilton Bank, N. A., Miami, Florida (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Hamilton Bank, N. A. (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

    Effective August 1, 2015 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20622 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10420, BankEast, Knoxville, Tennessee

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for BankEast, Knoxville, Tennessee (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of BankEast on January 27, 2012. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20624 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination; 10320—Chestatee State Bank Dawsonville, GA

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10320—Chestatee State Bank, Dawsonville, Georgia (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Chestatee State Bank, N. A. (Receivership Estate). The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

    Effective August 1, 2015 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20623 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10479, Central Arizona Bank, Scottsdale, Arizona

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Central Arizona Bank, Scottsdale, Arizona (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Central Arizona Bank on May 14, 2013. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20626 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to all Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10483, Mountain National Bank, Sevierville, Tennessee

    NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Mountain National Bank, Sevierville, Tennessee (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Mountain National Bank on June 7, 2013. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20627 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY [No. 2015-N-6] Federal Home Loan Bank Community Support Program—Opportunity To Comment on Members Subject To Review AGENCY:

    Federal Housing Finance Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is announcing that FHFA will review all applicable Federal Home Loan Bank (Bank) members in 2015 under FHFA's community support requirements regulation. This Notice invites the public to comment on the community support performance of individual members.

    DATES:

    Public comments on individual Bank members' community support performance must be submitted to FHFA on or before December 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on members' community support performance should be submitted to FHFA by electronic mail at [email protected] or by fax to 202-649-4130.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Allen, Principal Program Analyst, at [email protected] or 202-658-9266, Office of Housing and Community Investment, Division of Housing Mission and Goals, Federal Housing Finance Agency, Ninth Floor, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Community Support Review

    Section 10(g)(1) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) requires FHFA to promulgate regulations establishing standards of community investment or service that Bank members must meet in order to maintain access to long-term Bank advances. See 12 U.S.C. 1430(g)(1). The regulations promulgated by FHFA must take into account factors such as the Bank member's performance under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA), 12 U.S.C. 2901 et seq., and the Bank member's record of lending to first-time homebuyers. See 12 U.S.C. 1430(g)(2). Pursuant to section 10(g) of the Bank Act, FHFA has promulgated a community support requirements regulation that establishes standards a Bank member must meet in order to maintain access to long-term advances, and establishes review criteria FHFA must apply in evaluating a member's community support performance. See 12 CFR part 1290. The regulation includes standards and criteria for the two statutory factors—members' CRA performance and members' record of lending to first-time homebuyers. 12 CFR 1290.3. Only members subject to the CRA must meet the CRA standard. 12 CFR 1290.3(b). All members subject to community support review, including those not subject to the CRA, must meet the first-time homebuyer standard. 12 CFR 1290.3(c). Members that have been certified as community development financial institutions (CDFIs) are deemed to be in compliance with the community support requirements and are not subject to periodic community support review, unless the CDFI member is also an insured depository institution or a CDFI credit union. 12 CFR 1290.2(d). In addition, FHFA will not review an institution's community support performance until it has been a Bank member for at least one year. 12 CFR 1290.2(e).

    Under the regulation, as amended effective June 29, 2015, FHFA reviews all applicable members in 2015 and every two years afterwards. FHFA is currently in transition to this new schedule beginning in 2015, and has already reviewed the community support performance of a significant number of Bank members during the 2014-15 review cycle that FHFA conducted under the previous regulation. Consequently, during the balance of 2015, FHFA is reviewing the community support performance of applicable members that have not already submitted Community Support Statements during the 2014-15 cycle. 12 CFR 1290.2(b)(2).

    II. Public Comments

    FHFA encourages the public to submit comments on the community support performance of Bank members, on or before December 31, 2015. Under the amended regulation, each Bank has notified its Advisory Council, nonprofit housing developers, community groups, and other interested parties in its district, and has posted a notice on its public Web site of the opportunity to submit comments on the community support programs and activities of Bank members, with the name and address of each member subject to community support review. 12 CFR 1290.2(c)(1). In reviewing a member for community support compliance, FHFA will consider any public comments it has received concerning the member. 12 CFR 1290.2(c)(3). To ensure consideration by FHFA, comments concerning the community support performance of members being reviewed in 2015 must be submitted to FHFA, either by electronic mail to [email protected], or by fax to 202-649-4130, on or before December 31, 2015. 12 CFR 1290.2(c)(2).

    The names of applicable members currently subject to Community Support review can be found on the public Web sites for the individual Banks at:

    Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston—District 1 (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont) http://www.fhlbboston.com/communitydevelopment/programs/support_statements.jsp Federal Home Loan Bank of New York—District 2 (New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico) http://www.fhlbny.com/news-events/bulletins-memos/prior-bulletins-memos/2015/bulletin062915.aspx Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh—District 3 (Delaware, Pennsylvania, West Virginia) http://www.fhlb-pgh.com/community-support.html Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta—District 4 (Alabama, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia) http://corp.fhlbatl.com/fhlbank-atlanta-highlights/2015-community-support-review/ Federal Home Loan Bank of Cincinnati—District 5 (Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee) https://web.fhlbcin.com/Documents/Community%20Support%20Public%20Notice%20Master.pdf Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis—District 6 (Indiana, Michigan) http://www.fhlbi.com/housing/documents/LettertoInterestedParties.pdf Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago—District 7 (Illinois, Wisconsin) http://www.fhlbc.com/ProductsandServices/CommunityInvestmentsandAffordableHousingPrograms/Pages/federal-home-loan-bank-chicago-community-support-statements.aspx Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines—District 8 (Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming) http://www.fhlbdm.com/homepage-news-feed/2015-community-support-statement/ Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas—District 9 (Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Texas) https://www.fhlb.com/membership/Pages/Community-Support-Standards.aspx Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka—District 10 (Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma) http://www.fhlbtopeka.com/s/index.cfm?aid=336 Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco—District 11 (Arizona, California, Nevada) http://www.fhlbsf.com/community/grant/community-support-review.aspx Dated: August 17, 2015. Melvin L. Watt, Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20734 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8070-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 17, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. Heartland Bancorp, Inc., Bloomington, Illinois; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of National Bancorp, Inc., Schaumburg, Illinois, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of American Midwest Bank, Sycamore, Illinois.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. CFSB Holding Co., Broken Bow, Nebraska; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Custer Federal State Bank, Broken Bow, Nebraska.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 18, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20685 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Immediate Disaster Case Management (IDCM) Intake Assessment

    OMB No.: 0970-NEW

    Description: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) seeks to collect information from disaster survivors following a Presidential Declaration of a disaster where Individual Assistance is approved. The information collection tool will promote: 1) efficient collection of information from disaster survivors, 2) centralization of information and resources to allow rapid connection to resources, and 3) improvement in the collection and output of key metrics that related to specific mission and disaster.

    Respondents: Individuals who voluntarily enroll in the IDCM program.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average burden hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    IDCM Intake Assessment 3,500 1 40 Minutes 140,000 Minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 140,000 minutes

    Additional Information:

    Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment:

    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20716 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request

    Title: Administration for Native Americans Annual Data Collection.

    OMB No.: New.

    Description: Content and formatting changes are being made to the Objective Progress Report (OPR). Content changes are being made to the OPR, now known as the Annual Data Collection (ADC) previously approved under information collection OMB No. 0980-0204. ANA has determined that the requirement for ANA grantees to submit information about the project activities on quarterly basis creates undue burden for Grantees. Therefore, ANA has reformatted the OPR to require Grantees submit and annual report instead of quarterly report when reporting on partnerships, youth and elder engagement, impact indicators, community involvement etc. This will reduce the administrative burden on Grantees, especially the smaller organizations. The majority of content being requested from the grantees essentially remain same except for the frequency of reporting. The other sections of the document with reference to “quarterly” information will be changed to reflect the shift from four-times a year reporting requirement to once per year and once at the end of the project period.

    Respondents: Tribal Government, Native non-profit organizations, Tribal Colleges & Universities receiving ANA funding.

    The following is the hour of burden estimate for this information collection:

    Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden hours
    ADC 275 1 1 275

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 275.

    In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address: [email protected] All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

    The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (b) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (c) 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20703 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Notice of the Intent to Award a Single-Source Grant to the National Association of States United for Aging and Disabilities AGENCY:

    Administration for Community Living, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Community Living (ACL) announces the intent to award a single-source grant award in the amount of $285,000 to the National Association of State United for Aging and Disabilities (NASUAD). This award is to support and stimulate the expansion of work already under way by NASUAD to further develop and assist states to implement a valid and reliable National Core Indicator Survey for older adults and people with physical disabilities (NCI-AD).

    Program Name: National Core Indicator Survey.

    Award Amount: $285,000.

    DATES:

    The award will be issued for a project period of September 30, 2015 through September 29, 2016.

    Award Type: Single Source Award.

    Statutory Authority:

    The Statutory authority contained in Title II of the Older Americans Act (OAA) (42 U.S.C. 3017), as amended by the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006, Public Law 109-365 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 93.048, Title II Evaluation), as well as Title I, Subtitle E of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15081), Public Law 106-402 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 93.631, Developmental Disabilities Projects of National Significance), and Title II of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Pub. L. 113-128).

    CFDA Numbers: 93.048, 93.631, and 93.433

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shawn Terrell, Office of Policy and Evaluation, Administration for Community Living, 1 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20001. Telephone: 202-357-3517; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In 2009, NASUAD began a partnership with National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services (NASDDDS) and Human Services Research Institute (HSRI) to expand the National Core Indicators Survey to include older adults and people with physical disabilities. As a result of the NASUAD/NASDDDS/HSRI partnership, the expanded tool, NCI-AD, has been piloted in 3 states. Fourteen states are currently slated to begin using the tool in the summer of 2015. NASUAD is the lead partner for the NCI-AD project. This one-year of grant funding, through a continuation grant, will support NASUAD in their efforts to develop and perform comprehensive and rigorous validity/reliability testing; provide support for NCI-AD regional meetings (in conjunction with ACL regional meetings); engage in additional technical assistance including bi-monthly TA calls, continuous quality improvement activities, stakeholder engagement, survey customization, in-person interviewer training, in-person meeting with state staff, refresher webinars, and monthly update calls; recruit states to participate in the project; enhance person centered planning measures in the tool; sampling methodologies, outcome reports by state, quality improvement activities by state, and others.

    This program is authorized under the Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended in 2006, Public Law 109-365 as well as Title II of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Pub. L. 113-128), and Title I, Subtitle E of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000, Public Law 106-402 (Developmental Disabilities Projects of National Significance).

    Dated: August 12, 2015. Aaron Bishop, Commissioner Administration for Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Administration Community Living.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20392 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Respiratory Sciences Integrated Review Group; Respiratory Integrative Biology and Translational Research Study Section.

    Date: October 1, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Holiday Inn Riverwalk, 217 N. St. Mary's Street, San Antonio, TX 78205.

    Contact Person: Bradley Nuss, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4142, MSC7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-8754, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Musculoskeletal, Oral and Skin Sciences Integrated Review Group; Musculoskeletal Tissue Engineering Study Section.

    Date: October 5, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Pier 2620 Hotel, 2620 Jones Street, San Francisco, CA 94133.

    Contact Person: Baljit S Moonga, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4214, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1777, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Risk, Prevention and Health Behavior Integrated Review Group; Psychosocial Risk and Disease Prevention Study Section.

    Date: October 5-6, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Stacey FitzSimmons, Ph.D., MPH, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3114, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-9956, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group; Pathobiology of Kidney Disease Study Section.

    Date: October 5-6, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Gaithersburg Marriott Washingtonian Center, 9751 Washingtonian Boulevard, Gaithersburg, MD 20878.

    Contact Person: Atul Sahai, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2188, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1198, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Vascular and Hematology Integrated Review Group; Vascular Cell and Molecular Biology Study Section.

    Date: October 5-6, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Row Hotel, 2015 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Contact Person: Larry Pinkus, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4132, MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1214, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 17, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20645 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Age-Induced Bone Loss.

    Date: September 22, 2015.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institution on Aging, Gateway Building, 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Isis S. Mikhail, MD, MPH, DRPH National Institute On Aging Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7704, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 17, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20643 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Web-Based Resource for Youth About Clinical Research SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on 3/12/2015 pages 13013-13014, and allowed 60-days for public comment. One public comment was received. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Direct Comments to OMB: Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-6974, Attention: NIH Desk Officer.

    Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this publication.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Ms. Victoria Pemberton, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Dr., Room 8102, MSC 7940, Bethesda, MD 20892-7940, or call non-toll-free number 301-435-0510, or Email your request, including your address to [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    Proposed Collection: Web-based Resource for Youth about Clinical Research (NHLBI), 0925-New, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: The purpose and use of the information collection for this project is to develop a comprehensive web-based resource for youth with chronic illnesses or diseases that will attempt to increase knowledge, self-efficacy, and positive attitudes towards participation in various clinical trials and research. As a result of the proposed web-based resource, the knowledge gained from developing and testing this web-based resource will ultimately help equip youth to make informed decisions about clinical research and increase motivation to participate in that research. In addition, the knowledge gained will be invaluable to the field of clinical research given the need for more clinical trials with youth. Specifically, the proposed web-based resource will be an interactive, multimedia, developmentally appropriate resource for youth to be educated about pediatric clinical trials. The resource will be developed for youth aged 8 to 14 years. The theme of “investigative cyber-reporting” will be used throughout and will include youth making a series of decisions about different aspects of participating in clinical research studies. Youth will be tasked with the responsibility of learning all they can about clinical research trials in order to facilitate their knowledge and decision-making processes. Language typically used in journalism and design elements reminiscent of journalism will be incorporated into the content, design, and layout of the resource. There are three main components that will comprise the web-based resource. These include an interactive leaning module, full length video testimonials, and an electronic comic book. The benefits and necessities for this particular research on pediatric clinical trials are congruent with NHLBI's research goals and mission statement: Attempting to assist in the enhancement of the health of individuals so that they can live longer and more fulfilling lives. The current lack of knowledge surrounding pediatric clinical trials can be dangerous and unhealthy towards the lives of youth, becoming a large public health need.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 172.

    Estimates of Hour Burden Form name Type of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total annual
  • burden hour
  • Individual Interview Parent Permission Form parents 9 1 5/60 1 One-to-One Evaluation Study Parent Permission Form parents 5 1 5/60 0.42 Pre-Post Feedback Study Parent Permission parents 34 1 5/60 3 Individual Interview Child Assent Form youth 9 1 5/60 1 One-to-One Evaluation Study Child Assent Form youth 5 1 5/60 0.42 Pre-Post Feedback Study Child Assent Form youth 34 1 5/60 3 Individual Interview Questions (Feature Stories) youth 3 1 2 6 Individual Interview Questions (Family Spotlights) youth 3 1 2 6 Individual Interview Questions (Comic Book) youth 3 1 2 6 One-to-One Evaluation Study Questionnaire youth 5 1 2 10 Pre-Post Feedback Study Questionnaire youth 34 1 4 136
    Dated: July 30, 2015. Valery Gheen, NHLBI Project Clearance Liaison, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20708 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2); 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 purpose of this meeting is to evaluate requests for preclinical development resources for potential new therapeutics for the treatment of cancer. The outcome of the evaluation will provide information to internal NCI committees that will decide whether NCI should support requests and make available contract resources for development of the potential therapeutic to improve the treatment of various forms of cancer. The research proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposed research projects, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Jun2015 Cycle 20 NExT SEP Committee Meeting.

    Date: September 22, 2015.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To evaluate the NCI Experimental Therapeutics Program Portfolio.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, Campus Building 31, Conference Room 6C6, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Barbara Mroczkowski, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, Discovery Experimental Therapeutics Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 31 Center Drive, Room 3A44, Bethesda, MD 20817, (301) 496-4291, [email protected]

    Toby Hecht, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, Development Experimental Therapeutics Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 3W110, Rockville, MD 20850, (240) 276-5683, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 17, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20644 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804; telephone: 301-496-7057; fax: 301-402-0220. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent applications.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Technology descriptions follow.

    Novel Benztropine Analogs for Treatment of Cocaine Abuse and Other Mental Disorders

    Description of Technology: Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that exerts important effects on locomotor activity, motivation and reward, and cognition. The dopamine transporter (DAT) is expressed on the plasma membrane of dopamine synthesizing neurons, and is responsible for clearing dopamine released into the extra-cellular space, thereby regulating neurotransmission. The dopamine transporter plays a significant role in neurotoxicity and human diseases, such as Parkinson's disease, drug abuse (especially cocaine addiction), Attention Deficit Disorder/Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADD/ADHD), and a number of other CNS disorders. Therefore, the dopamine transporter is a strong target for research and the discovery of potential therapeutics for the treatment of these indications.

    This invention discloses novel benztropine analogs and methods of using these analogs for treatment of mental and conduct disorders such as cocaine abuse, narcolepsy, ADHD, obesity and nicotine abuse. The disclosed analogs are highly selective and potent inhibitors of DAT, but without an apparent cocaine-like behavioral profile. In addition to their use as a treatment for cocaine abuse, these compounds have also shown efficacy in animal models of ADHD and nicotine abuse, and have also been shown to reduce food intake in animals. They may also be useful medications for other indications where dopamine-related behavior is compromised, such as alcohol addiction, tobacco addiction, and Parkinson's disease.

    Potential Commercial Applications:

    • Drug leads for treatment of cocaine abuse, ADHD, nicotine abuse, obesity, and other dopamine-related disorders

    • Imaging probes for dopamine transporter binding sites

    Development Stage: Early-stage; In vitro data available

    Inventors: Amy H. Newman, Mu-fa Zou, Jonathan L. Katz (all of NIDA)

    Intellectual Property: HHS Reference No. E-234-2005/1—US Patent No. 8,383,817 issued February 26, 2013

    Licensing Contact: Betty B. Tong, Ph.D.; 301-594-6565; [email protected]

    Collaborative Research Opportunity: The National Institute on Drug Abuse, Medicinal Chemistry and Psychobiology Sections, is seeking statements of capability or interest from parties interested in collaborative research to further develop, evaluate, or commercialize medications to treat cocaine abuse and addiction. For collaboration opportunities please contact John D. Hewes, Ph.D. at [email protected]

    Novel Dopamine Receptor Ligands as Therapeutics for Central Nervous System Disorders

    Description of Technology: The dopamine D3 receptor subtype is a member of the dopamine D2 subclass of receptors. These receptors have been implicated in a number of CNS disorders, including psychostimulant abuse, psychosis and Parkinson's disease. Compounds that bind with high affinity and selectivity to D3 receptors can not only provide important tools with which to study the structure and function of this receptor subtype, but may also have therapeutic potential in the treatment of numerous psychiatric and neurologic disorders.

    The 4-phenylpiperazine derivatives are an important class of dopamine D3 selective ligands. However, due to their highly lipophilic nature, these compounds suffer from solubility problems in aqueous media and reduced bioavailability. To address this problem, a process was designed to introduce functionality into the carbon chain linker of these compounds. Compared to currently available dopamine D3 receptor ligands, the resulting compounds show improved pharmacological properties and D3 selectivities but due to their more hydrophilic nature, these derivatives are predicted to have improved water solubility and bioavailability.

    Potential Commercial Applications:

    • Therapeutics for a variety of psychiatric and neurologic disorders

    • Research tools to study D3 receptor structure and function

    Competitive Advantages:

    • Improved pharmacological properties and selectivity over existing dopamine D3 receptor ligands

    • Hydrophilic nature likely to lead to improved water solubility and bioavailability

    Development Stage: Early-stage; In vitro data available

    Inventors: Amy H. Newman (NIDA), Peter Grundt (NIDA), Jianjing Cao (NIDA), Robert Luedtke

    Intellectual Property: HHS Reference No. E-128-2006/0—US Patent No. 8,748,608 issued June 10, 2014

    Licensing Contact: Betty B. Tong, Ph.D.; 301-594-6565; [email protected]

    Collaborative Research Opportunity: The National Institute on Drug Abuse, Medications Discovery Research Branch, is seeking statements of capability or interest from parties interested in collaborative research to further develop, evaluate, or commercialize 4-phenylpiperazine derivatives as dopamine D3 selective ligands. For collaboration opportunities, please contact Vio Conley, M.S. at 240-276-5531 or [email protected].

    Genome Wide DNase I Hypersensitive Sites Detection in Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Single Cells

    Description of Technology: A method of detecting DNase I hypersensitive sites ((DHS) in a single cell or very small number of cells, including cells recovered from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue slides of patient samples. DHS has revealed a large number of potential regulatory elements for transcriptional regulation in various cell types. The application of DNase-Seq techniques to patient samples can elucidate pathophysiological mechanisms of gene function in a variety of diseases as well as provide potentially important diagnostic and prognostic information. Unfortunately, the current DNase-Seq techniques require large number of cells and are applicable only to larger biopsies and surgical specimens. This technique, called Pico-Seq, allows detection when only very small population of cells are available, such as rare primary tumor cells and circulating-tumor-cells, isolated by a variety of methods. Pico-Seq uses conditions capable of restoring the DNase I sensitivity, similar to native/fresh cells, in tissue/cells from slides processed by extremely harsh conditions, such as in FFPE tissues.

    Potential Commercial Applications:

    • Diagnostic and prognostic kits

    • Research kits

    Competitive Advantages:

    • Applicable to very small number of cells down to a single cell.

    • Capable of using cells isolated by any of the available methods, including flow cytometry, biopsies, laser capture microdissection, and even cells recovered from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue slides of patient samples.

    Development Stage: Early-stage; In vitro data available

    Inventors: Keji Zhao and Tang Qingsong (NHLBI)

    Intellectual Property: HHS Reference No. E-254-2014/0—US Provisional Application No. 62/118,574 filed February 20, 2015

    Licensing Contact: Cristina Thalhammer-Reyero, Ph.D., M.B.A.; 301-435-4507; [email protected]

    Dated: August 18, 2015. Richard U. Rodriguez, Acting Director, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20694 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NCI P01 Meeting II.

    Date: October 15-16, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Delia Tang, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Research Programs Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W602, Bethesda, MD 20892, 240-276-6456, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Initial Review Group; Subcommittee I-Transition to Independence.

    Date: October 20-21, 2015.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Alexandria Old Town, 1767 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.

    Contact Person: Sergei Radaev, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer, Resources and Training Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W114, Bethesda, MD 20892, 240-276-6466, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 17, 2015. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20642 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Notice of Charter Renewal

    In accordance with Title 41 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Section 102-3.65(a), notice is hereby given that the Charter for the Advisory Committee to the Deputy Director for Intramural Research, National Institutes of Health, was renewed for an additional two-year period on August 15, 2015.

    It is determined that the Advisory Committee to the Deputy Director for Intramural Research, National Institutes of Health, is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the National Institutes of Health by law, and that these duties can best be performed through the advice and counsel of this group.

    Inquiries may be directed to Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal, Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (Mail code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or [email protected] .

    Dated: August 17, 2015. Anna Snouffer, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20646 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2015-0753] Recreational Boating Accident Reporting Manual, COMDTINST M16782.1 AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has developed a draft Recreational Boating Accident Reporting Manual, COMDTINST M16782.1, to replace Standard Method of Reporting (Boating Accidents), CG-449, which was last published in September 1973. We seek public comment on this draft.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by the Coast Guard on or before November 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments using one of the listed methods, and see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more information on public comments.

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

    (2) Fax: (202) 493-2251.

    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 366-9329.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information about this document call or email Susan Weber; 202-372-1103, [email protected] For information about viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number [USCG-2015-0753] in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

    2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2015-0753) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

    Discussion

    The Coast Guard's National Recreational Boating Safety Program aims to reduce accidents, injuries and deaths on America's waterways and to facilitate safe enjoyable boating. It promotes greater uniformity among States and localities in boating safety laws, enforcement, and administration. The Program also requires boating safety reporting by States and boaters involved in accidents. This notice announces the availability of a new draft accident reporting manual and seeks comment on its content.

    The manual addresses the following broad topics:

    • Regulations, vessel determinations, accident scenarios policy, and definitions of terms.

    • Report form and reporting system.

    • Expected roles of the Coast Guard and State.

    • Investigation and data entry expectations.

    Comments can discuss any aspects or other concerns about the Manual. Submissions will be reviewed internally to determine whether amendments need to be made to the Manual.

    This notice is issued under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 6102 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: August 17, 2015. Verne B. Gifford, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20738 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2015-0698] Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Department of Homeland Security, Coast Guard.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee will meet to discuss matters relating to medical certification determinations for issuance of licenses, certificates of registry, merchant mariners' documents, medical standards and guidelines for the physical qualifications of operators of commercial vessels, medical examiner education, and medical research. The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee is scheduled to meet on Monday, September 28 and Tuesday, September 29, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. and 8 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. respectively. Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business. All submitted written materials, comments, and requests to make oral presentations at the meeting should reach Lieutenant Ashley Holm, Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee, no later than September 21, 2015. For contact information, please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below. Any written material submitted by the public both before and after the meeting will be distributed to the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee and become part of the public record.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Texas A&M Maritime Academy, Mary Moody Northen Banquet Room, 200 Seawolf Parkway, Galveston, TX 77554 (http://www.tamug.edu/corps/index.html). For further information about the meeting facilities, please contact Ms. Kathey Walker at (409) 740-4408.

    For information on services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section as soon as possible. For planning purposes, please notify the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee Alternate Designated Federal Officer of your attendance as soon as possible.

    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the “Agenda” section below. Written comments must be submitted no later than September 21, 2015, in order for committee members to review comments before the meeting, and must be identified by docket number USCG-2015-0698 and submitted by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments (preferred method to avoid delays in processing).

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

    Instructions: All submissions 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. You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    Docket: For access to the docket to read documents or comments related to this Notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, insert USCG-2011-0138 in the “SEARCH” box, press Enter and then click on the item you wish to view.

    A public comment period will be held on September 28, 2015, from approximately 11:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. and September 29, 2015 from approximately 2:15 p.m.-2:45 p.m. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 5 minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Additionally, public comment will be sought throughout the meeting as specific issues are discussed by the committee. Contact Lieutenant Ashley Holm as indicated below to register as a speaker.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lieutenant Ashley Holm, Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee, at telephone 202-372-1128 or email [email protected] If you have any questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826 or 1-800-647-5527.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 United States Code Appendix. The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee Meeting is authorized by 46 United States Code 7115 and advises the Secretary on matters related to (a) medical certification determinations for issuance of licenses, certificates of registry, and merchant mariners' documents; (b) medical standards and guidelines for the physical qualifications of operators of commercial vessels; (c) medical examiner education; and (d) medical research.

    A copy of all meeting documentation is available at https://homeport.uscg.mil by using these key strokes: Missions; Port and Waterways; Safety Advisory Committees; MEDMAC and then use the announcements key. Alternatively, you may contact Lieutenant Ashley Holm as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    Agenda Day 1

    The agenda for the September 28, 2015 meeting is as follows:

    (1) Opening remarks from Texas A&M leadership.

    (2) Opening remarks from Coast Guard leadership.

    (3) Opening remarks from the Designated Federal Officer.

    (4) Roll call of committee members and determination of a quorum.

    (5) Review of last full committee meeting's minutes.

    (6) Introduction of new task(s).

    (7) Presentation on Merchant Mariner Fitness for Duty.

    (8) Public comments.

    (9) Presentation on Infectious Diseases.

    (10) Working Groups addressing the following task statements may meet to deliberate—

    (a) Task Statement 13, Mariner Occupational Health Risk Analysis. This is a joint task statement with the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee.

    (b) The Committee will receive new task statements from the Coast Guard, review the information presented on each issue, deliberate and formulate recommendations for the Department's consideration.

    (8) Adjournment of meeting.

    Day 2

    The agenda for the September 29, 2015 meeting is as follows:

    (1) Continue work on Task Statements.

    (2) Public comments.

    (3) By mid-afternoon, the Working Groups will report, and if applicable, make recommendations for the full committee to consider for presentation to the Coast Guard. The committee may vote on the working group's recommendations on this date. The public will have an opportunity to speak after each Working Group's Report before the full committee takes any action on each report.

    (4) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.

    (5) Adjournment of Meeting.

    Dated: August 14, 2015. V.B. Gifford, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20681 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2012-0026] Notice To Extend the Comment Period for the Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants; NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 2 AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is extending the comment period for the proposed revision to “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants” NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 2, which published in the Federal Register on May 29, 2015. The comment period for the proposed revised guidance, which would have ended on August 27, 2015, is extended until October 13, 2015.

    DATES:

    The comment period is extended until October 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments must be identified by Docket ID FEMA-2012-0026 and may be submitted by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Please note that this draft guidance is not a rulemaking and the Federal Rulemaking Portal is being utilized only as a mechanism for receiving comments.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 8 NE., Washington, DC 20472.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Eberst, Policy Supervisor, Professional Services Branch, Technological Hazards Division, Protection and National Preparedness Directorate, [email protected], (202) 341-4917.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Public Participation

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act notice, which can be viewed by clicking on the “Privacy Notice” link on the homepage of www.regulations.gov.

    You may submit your comments and material by methods specified in the ADDRESSES section above. Please submit your comments and any supporting material by only one means to avoid the receipt and review of duplicate submissions.

    Docket: The draft guidance is available in Docket ID FEMA-2012-0026. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov and search for the Docket ID. Submitted comments may also be inspected at FEMA, Office of Chief Counsel, 500 C Street SW., 8 NE., Washington, DC 20472.

    II. Background

    In November 1980, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants” (NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1) with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as a joint policy document. (45 FR 85862, December 30, 1980). Since the publication of NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 in 1980, four supplementary documents and one addendum (66 FR 22270, May 3, 2001) have been issued that update and modify specific planning and procedural elements. FEMA and the NRC are proposing to revise NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 to address stakeholder interest and the various emergency planning and preparedness lessons learned since its initial publication.

    On May 29, 2015, both FEMA and the NRC published notices to solicit public input on the draft “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants,” NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 2. (80 FR 30697 and 80 FR 30739). Based on comments received, and because FEMA and the NRC have specifically requested the public's comments on the proposed revised guidance in an attempt to benefit from the experience of all interested parties, the comment period will be extended for an additional 45 days. This notice announces the extension of the public comment period to October 13, 2015.

    Authority:

    NRC Authorization Acts of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-295) and 1982-1983 (Pub. L. 97-415); Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, Titles II and VI, Sections 201 and 611, 42 U.S.C. 5131 and 5196; Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended, Title VI, Chapter 1, Subchapter V, Sections 503 and 504, 6 U.S.C. 313 and 314; Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006, Title V, Section 612, 6 U.S.C. 314a; Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations for 1999, 42 U.S.C. 5196e; Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, Title VI, Sections 602, 642, 643, and 644, 6 U.S.C. 701, 742, 743, and 744; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978; E.O. 12241, as amended; E.O. 12127, as amended. E.O. 12148, as amended; E.O. 12657, as amended; FEMA's regulations in Title 44, Chapter I, Parts 350-354 of the CFR.

    Dated: August 12, 2015. W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20721 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-21-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5828-N-34] Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.).

    Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.

    Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to: Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 5B-17, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-2265 (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.

    For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.

    For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.

    Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the Federal Register, the landholding agency, and the property number.

    For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses: Agriculture: Ms. Debra Kerr, Department of Agriculture, Reporters Building, 300 7th Street SW., Room 300, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 720-8873; Commerce: Ms. Linda Steward, Department of Commerce, Office of Real Estate, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 1036, Washington, DC 20230, (202)-482-1770; Energy: Mr. David Steinau, Department of Energy, Office of Property Management, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 287-1503; GSA: Mr. Flavio Peres, General Services Administration, Office of Real Property Utilization and Disposal, 1800 F Street NW., Room 7040, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-0084; Navy: Mr. Steve Matteo, Department of the Navy, Asset Management; Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington Navy Yard, 1330 Patterson Ave. SW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20374; (202) 685-9426 (These are not toll-free numbers).

    Dated: August 13, 2015. Juanita N. Perry, Special Needs Assistance Program Specialist, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs. TITLE V, FEDERAL SURPLUS PROPERTY PROGRAM FEDERAL REGISTER REPORT FOR 08/21/2015 Suitable/Available Properties Building Michigan Luther Fornell Road Luzerne MI 48636 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201530003 Status: Unutilized Comments: off-site removal; no future agency need; 40+ yrs. old; 852 sq. ft.; vacant 36+ mos.; poor conditions; contact Agriculture for more information. Sprinkler Lake Staff Dorm 1700 Adams Rd., Glennie MI 48737 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201530005 Status: Unutilized Directions: 51258 Staff Dormitory Comments: off-site removal only; no future agency need; 2,112 sq. ft.; removal difficult due to size/type; repairs needed; asbestos; contact Agriculture for more information. Kenton Dwelling #3 5005 East M-28 Kenton MI 49967 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201530007 Status: Excess Directions: Infra #1107 Comments: 1,500 sq. ft.; residential; 50+ yrs.-old; fair conditions; contact Agriculture for more information. Land Oklahoma FAA Oklahoma City Outer Marker NW 3rd. Street Oklahoma City OK 73127 Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54201530003 Status: Surplus GSA Number: 7-U-OK-0582-AA Directions: Disposal Agency: GSA; Land Holding Agency: DOT/Federal Aviation Admin. Comments: 0.27 fee acres and a 0.08 acre assess easement. West Virginia Former AL1-RCLR Tower Site 2146 Orleans Rd., Great Cacapon WV 25422 Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54201530002 Status: Surplus GSA Number: 4-U-WV-0561AA Directions: Direction: Disposal Agency: GSA? Land Holding Agency: Federal Aviation Administration Comments: 9.69 acres; located on ridgetop. Unsuitable Properties Building California Building 2389 2389 Training Street Marine Corps Camp Pen CA 92055 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201530017 Status: Excess Comments: Property located within floodway which has not been correct or contained; public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Floodway; Secured Area Building 23213 (Storage) 23213 Teamwork Street Marine Corps Camp Pen CA 92055 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201530018 Status: Underutilized Comments: Located within floodway which has not been correct or contained; public access denied and no alternative method to gain access w/out compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area; Floodway Illinois 5 Buildings Argonne National Laboratory Argonne IL 60439 Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41201530004 Status: Excess Directions: OSF031, OSF032, OSF163, OSF264, OSF160 Comments: Public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Louisiana 2 Buildings Barksdale AFB Barksdale AFB LA 71110 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201530020 Status: Unutilized Comments: Public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Michigan Wakeley Lake Storage Building Wakeley Lake Access Rd. Grayling MI 49738 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201530004 Status: Unutilized Comments: Documented deficiencies: structurally unsound; clear threat to physical safety. Reasons: Extensive deterioration Kenton House #2 4969 East M-28 Kenton MI 49967 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201530006 Status: Excess Directions: Infra #1106 Comments: Documented deficiencies: collapsed foundation and structurally unsound; clear threat to physical safety. Reasons: Extensive deterioration Virginia Sterling Field Support Ctr., 43741 Weather Service Rd. Sterling VA 20166 Landholding Agency: Commerce Property Number: 27201530001 Status: Unutilized Directions: Building 22, Quonset Hut Comments: Public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security; structurally unsound; building is collapsing. Reasons: Secured Area; Extensive deterioration
    [FR Doc. 2015-20486 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT [LLNV912. L12100000.PH0000 LXSS006F0000 261A; 14-08807; MO #4500082778] Sierra Front-Northwest Great Basin Resource Advisory Council AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    Title: Notice of Public Meetings: Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, Nevada: Correction

    ACTION:

    Notice; Correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Land Management published a notice in the Federal Register on August 7, 2015, (80 FR 47515) in the first column, stating the intent to hold a Federal Advisory Committee, (FACA) meeting of the Sierra Front-Northwest Great Basin Resource Advisory Council. The official FACA meeting scheduled in Winnemucca, Nevada on September 17-18, 2015, at the BLM Winnemucca BLM District Office (5100 East Winnemucca Blvd.) has an additional agenda item regarding a Forest Service recreation fee proposal.

    DATES:

    September 17 and September 18. Approximate meeting times are from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Winnemucca BLM District Office, 5100 East Winnemucca Blvd., Winnemucca, Nevada 89445; Phone: 775-623-1500.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa Ross, Public Affairs Specialist, Carson City District Office, 5665 Morgan Mill Road, Carson City, NV 89701, telephone: (775) 885-6107, email: [email protected]

    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., during normal business hours.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of August 7, 2015, in FR Vol. 80, No. 152 on page 47515 in the first column, Topics for discussion, add:

    • Recreation fee proposal regarding Christmas tree permits for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

    Stephen D. Clutter, Chief of Communications, BLM Nevada State Office.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20668 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLNVW0000.L5110000.GN0000.LVEMF1402860.14X; MO #4500078994] Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Coeur Rochester Mine Plan of Operations Amendment 10 and Closure Plan, Pershing County, NV AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Coeur Rochester Mine Plan of Operations Amendment 10 and Closure Plan and by this notice is announcing the opening of the comment period.

    DATES:

    To ensure comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the Coeur Rochester Mine Plan of Operations Amendment 10 and Closure Plan Draft EIS within 45 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. The BLM will announce future meetings or hearings and any other public involvement activities at least 15 days in advance through public notices, media releases, and/or mailings.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments related to the Coeur Rochester Mine Plan of Operations Amendment 10 and Closure Plan Draft EIS by any of the following methods:

    Web site: http://on.doi.gov/1d5pIxR.

    Email: [email protected] Include Coeur Rochester Mine POA10 DEIS Comments in the subject line.

    Fax: 775-623-1503.

    Mail: BLM Winnemucca District, Humboldt River Field Office, 5100 E. Winnemucca Blvd., Winnemucca, NV 89445.

    Copies of the Coeur Rochester Mine Plan of Operations Amendment 10 and Closure Plan Draft EIS are available in the Winnemucca District Office at the above address.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathleen Rehberg, Project Lead, telephone 775-623-1500; address BLM Winnemucca District, Humboldt River Field Office, 5100 E. Winnemucca Blvd., Winnemucca, NV 89445; email [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The applicant, Coeur Rochester, Inc. (CRI), has requested an expansion of their operations at the existing Coeur Rochester Mine, which is located approximately 18 miles northeast of Lovelock, Nevada, in the Humboldt Range, Pershing County. The mine is currently authorized up to a disturbance of 1,939 acres (approximately 187 acres of private land and 1,752 acres of public land), which was permitted under a series of Environmental Assessments (EA N26-86-002P, February 1986; EA NV-020-99-12, February 1999; EA NV-020-01-06, December 2000; EA NV-020-01-06, February 2002; EA NV-020-03-13, August 2003; DOI-BLM-NV-W010-2010-0010-EA, October 2010).

    The Draft EIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed changes to CRI's current operations presented under this Plan of Operations (Plan) modification, which includes disturbance to 2,170.1 acres, of which 1,939 acres are already approved for disturbance. A total of 254.5 acres of the new disturbance is proposed on public land, however, there will be a reduction of approved disturbance acres of 23.3 acres on private land.

    The Draft EIS analyzes three alternatives: (1) The Proposed Action, (2) Permanent Management of Potentially Acid Generating (PAG) Material Outside of the Rochester Pit Alternative, and (3) the No Action Alternative. If selected by the BLM, the Proposed Action would include a change to the Plan boundary designed to include existing claims and newly acquired private lands within the boundary. However, all of the proposed disturbance to public land would be within the existing approved Plan boundary. The proposal includes the following:

    • An approximately 67-acre expansion to the existing Stage IV Heap Leach Pad (HLP);

    • An increase of the allowable maximum Stage IV HLP stacking height from 330 feet to 400 feet;

    • Construction of a 124-acre Stage V HLP with associated ponds and tank;

    • Relocation of a portion of the American Canyon public access road and establishment of an associated right-of-way (ROW);

    • Relocation of a portion of the paved Rochester main access road ROW;

    • Realignment of the Stage IV haul road and construction of secondary access roads;

    • Relocation of existing power lines consistent with the proposed ROW realignments and HLP construction;

    • Relocation of the electrical building, core shed, and production well PW-2a;

    • Excavation of new borrow areas and construction of one new growth medium stockpile;

    • Installation of the Stage IV HLP conveyor system, associated load out points, ore stockpiles, maintenance road, and utility corridor, including process solutions and fresh water supply pipelines; and

    • Changes to closure activities for existing facilities including: altering the open pit safety berm sizes; HLP interim fluid management plans; HLP cover designs; the installation of evaporation cells; and long-term draindown management.

    Under the the Permanent Management of PAG Material Outside of the Rochester Pit Alternative, the proposed activities listed in the Proposed Action would be the same, with the exception of the permanent location of the PAG material. In this alternative the material would be permanently relocated outside of the existing pit.

    Under the No-Action Alternative, the BLM would not approve the proposed Plan modification and there would be no expansion. CRI would continue mining activities under their previously approved plan of operation.

    Three other alternatives were considered, then eliminated: (1) Pit Backfill Elevation Alternative, (2) Alternate Location for Stage V HLP Alternative, and (3) Close a Portion of American Canyon Road to Public Access Alternative.

    A Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS for the Proposed Coeur Rochester Mine Expansion was published in the Federal Register on June 27, 2014 (79 FR 36554). Eleven comments were received during a 30-day scoping period. Information accepted during project scoping was compiled to develop issue statements, which are listed in the Draft EIS. The following issues of environmental, social, and economic concern were identified: Air quality from mine emissions (including mercury and greenhouse gases), climate change, geochemical mining impacts, baseline data, alternatives development, monitoring, cumulative impacts assessment, and potential impacts on vegetation, riparian resources, dispersed recreation, visual resources, water quality and quantity, wild horses and burros, and wildlife and special status species.

    The BLM analyzed a combination of proposed environmental measures and possible mitigation to eliminate or minimize any impacts associated with the proposed action. These included the potential for identifying opportunities to apply mitigation hierarchy strategies for on-site, regional, and compensatory mitigation appropriate to the size of the proposal, and management actions to achieve resource objectives. The BLM will use NEPA public participation requirements to assist the agency in satisfying the public involvement requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 U.S.C. 306108) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed Coeur Rochester Mine Plan of Operations Amendment 10 will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources in the context of both NEPA and the NHPA.

    The BLM continues to consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts to Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested or affected are invited to comment on the proposal that the BLM is evaluating.

    Please note that public comments and information submitted including names, street addresses, and email addresses of persons who submit comments will be available for public review and disclosure at the above address during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority:

    40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10

    James W. Schroeder, Field Manager, Humboldt River Field Office.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20582 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLMTL07000 L12320000.AL0000.LVRDMT010000.13X MO #4500076731] Notice of Intent To Collect Fees on the Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River in Blaine, Chouteau, Fergus, and Phillips Counties, MT AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to applicable provisions of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Central Montana District, Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument (UMRBNM), Lewistown Field Office is proposing to begin collecting fees for overnight camping at Coal Banks Landing Recreation Area, Judith Landing Recreation Area and for day and overnight trips (floats) on the Upper Missouri River from Coal Banks Landing Recreation Area (River Mile 41.5) to James Kipp Recreation Area (River Mile 149). The Upper Missouri River from Fort Benton, Montana (River Mile 0) to the James Kipp Recreation Area (River Mile 149) was designated as a National Wild and Scenic River on October 12, 1976, and subsequently included within the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument (UMRBNM) designation on January 17, 2001. The UMRBNM Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan designated the Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River (UMNWSR) as a Special Area in December 2008.

    DATES:

    To ensure that comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the proposal to collect fees by September 21, 2015. Effective 6 months after publication of this notice, the BLM's Central Montana District, UMRBNM will initiate fee collection at Coal Banks Landing, Judith Landing, and on the Upper Missouri River between Coal Banks Landing and James Kipp Recreation Area unless the BLM publishes a Federal Register notice to the contrary.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this fee collection proposal by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: 406-622-4040

    Mail: 920 NE Main, Lewistown, MT 59457

    Copies of the fee proposal are available at the BLM Central Montana District Office, Fort Benton River Management Station, 701 7th St., P.O. Box 1389, Fort Benton, MT 59442 or on line at: http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/umrbnm.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Schaefer, Supervisory Outdoor Recreation Planner, telephone: 406-622-4015; address: 920 NE Main, Lewistown, MT 59457; email: [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact Mr. Schaefer during normal business hours. FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question for Mr. Schaefer. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA)(16 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.), the Secretary may establish, modify, charge and collect recreation fees at Federal recreation lands and waters. The Coal Banks Landing to James Kipp Recreation Area section of the Upper Missouri River offers outstanding opportunities for overnight and day-use floating in canoes, kayaks, rafts or motorized watercraft. The special area also provides access to high quality outdoor recreation opportunities (primarily camping, sightseeing, hiking, fishing, and hunting). Maintaining a natural-appearing recreation setting, a quality social setting, and enhancing the visitor experience on the river while protecting natural resources requires substantial Federal investment. The BLM is committed to finding the proper balance between public use and the protection of resources.

    The new fees include a $10 overnight camping fee at the Coal Banks Landing Recreation Area and a $5 overnight camping fee at the Judith Landing Recreation Area. A Special Area Permit fee of $5 per watercraft for day use and $4 per person per day for overnight use will also be implemented between Coal Banks Landing (River Mile 41.5) and James Kipp Recreation Area (River Mile 149).

    Fee amounts will be posted on the BLM Central Montana District, UMRBNM Web site, at the Central Montana District Office, and Fort Benton River Management Station. Copies of the Fee Business Plan are available at the Central Montana District, UMRBNM Headquarters, the Fort Benton River Management Station, and the Montana State Office.

    The BLM may collect fees in conjunction with a Special Recreation Permit (SRP) as required to manage visitor use, protect natural resources, and achieve the goals of the UMRBNM Resource Management Plan (RMP). The special area qualifies as a site where visitors can be charged a fee in conjunction with an SRP authorized under Section 803(h) of the REA, 16 U.S.C. 6802(h). In accordance with the REA and implementing regulations at 43 CFR part 2930, visitors would obtain an individual SRP to boat within the Coal Banks Landing (River Mile 41.5) to James Kipp Recreation Area (River Mile 149) section of the Upper Missouri River. All fees collected would be used for expenses within the river corridor.

    The BLM's goal for the Upper Missouri River Fee program is to ensure that funding is available to protect resources and outstanding remarkable recreation values, maintain the area in a natural-appearing condition consistent with the recreation setting established by the RMP, and enhance visitor services and safety, including construction of additional campground exclosures at remote developed boat camps to mitigate conflicts between recreational users and livestock. In 1997, the UMNWSR was established as a fee area under the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program with only one campground (James Kipp Recreation Area) designated as a fee site. The James Kipp Recreation Area Business Plan was developed and amended in 2007 when fees at this location were increased. In December 2008, the UMRBNM record of Decision and Resource Management Plan was published which outlines the operational goals of recreation services and the area. The plan emphasizes protection and restoration of the natural resources while still providing for resource use and enjoyment. This 2008 Decision allows for recreation opportunities, the issuing of use permits, and the charging of expanded amenity fees for overnight camping in Level 1 sites and an individual special recreation permit for boating the UMNWSR. The establishment of a permit process and the collection of user fees were also addressed in the UMNWSR Business Plan, prepared pursuant to the REA and BLM recreation fee program policy. The Business Plan establishes the rationale for charging recreation fees. In accordance with BLM recreation fee program policy, the Business Plan explains the fee collection process and outlines how the fees will be used on the UMNWSR. BLM has notified and involved the public at each stage of the planning process, including the proposal to collect fees. The business plan provides management direction for the UMRBNM to include public enjoyment of these public lands and specifically comments on commercial use, fee collection, camping, boating, hunting, fishing and myriad other outdoor recreational opportunities. The current business plan for the UMRBNM/UMNWSR River Fees was completed in 2014 and encompasses the James Kipp Recreation Area business plan. The business plan addresses recreation opportunities, the issuance of SRP's and the charging of fees on a per watercraft and per person, per launch basis. The UMRBNM/UMNWSR River Fees plan, prepared pursuant to the REA and BLM recreation fee policy, also addresses the establishment of a permit process and the collection of user fees. The business plan articulates the rationale for charging recreation fees. In accordance with the BLM recreation fee program policy, the plan explains the fee collection process and outlines how the fees would be used on the UMRBNM/UMNWSR. The fee rates have been reviewed by the Central Montana Resource Advisory Council (RAC) and unanimously approved. Future adjustments in the fee amount would be made in accordance with the plan and through consultation with the Central Montana RAC and the public prior to a fee increase. Fee amounts will be posted onsite and online at the UMRBNM Web site at: http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/umrbnm.html. Copies of the plan will be available at the BLM Central Montana District Office and online at the UMRBNM Web site.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 6803(b) and 43 CFR 2932.13.

    Michael Kania, Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument Manager.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20713 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-DN-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [[15X L1109AF LLUTY01000 L16100000.DS0000.LXSS030J0000 24 1A] Notice of Availability of the Moab Master Leasing Plan and Draft Resource Management Plan Amendments/Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Moab and Monticello Field Offices, UT AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared the Moab Master Leasing Plan (MLP) and Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendments/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Moab and Monticello Field Offices in the Canyon Country District. The MLP/Draft RMP Amendments/Draft EIS would amend the Resource Management Plans for the Moab and Monticello Field Offices. This notice announces a 90-day comment period.

    DATES:

    To ensure that comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the MLP/Draft RMP Amendments/Draft EIS within 90 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability of the MLP/Draft RMP Amendments/Draft EIS in the Federal Register. The BLM will announce future meetings or hearings and any other public involvement activities at least 15 days in advance through public notices, media releases, and/or mailings.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the MLP/Draft RMP Amendments/Draft EIS by either of these methods:

    Web site: http://www.blm.gov/21jd.

    Email: [email protected].

    Fax: 435-259-2106.

    Mail: BLM, Canyon Country District Office, 82 East Dogwood, Moab, Utah 84532, Attention: Brent Northrup.

    Reference copies and compact discs of the MLP/Draft RMP Amendments/Draft EIS are available at the following locations: • Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah • Bureau of Land Management, Moab Field Office, 82 East Dogwood, Moab, Utah • Bureau of Land Management, Monticello Field Office, 365 North Main, Monticello, Utah The MLP/Draft RMP Amendments/Draft EIS and accompanying background documents are available on the MLP Web site at: http://www.blm.gov/21jd.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brent Northrup, Project Manager, BLM Moab Field Office, 82 East Dogwood, Moab, UT 84532, telephone 435-259-2151 or email [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question for the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The planning area covers about 785,000 acres of public lands in east-central Utah, Grand and San Juan Counties. The area is located south of Interstate 70 and adjoins the town of Moab and Arches National Park. The western boundary is the Green River and the northeastern boundary of Canyonlands National Park. To the south of Moab, the planning area includes the Indian Creek/Lockhart Basin/Hatch Point area between Canyonlands National Park and Highway 191. The planning area encompasses a mix of land uses including a wide variety of recreation uses oil, gas, and potash development.

    The BLM is preparing a MLP/Draft RMP Amendments/Draft EIS in accordance with the BLM Washington Office (WO) Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2010-117: Oil and Gas Leasing Reform—Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews (May 17, 2010) and the BLM Handbook H-1624-1: Planning for Fluid Mineral Resources (January 28, 2013). Although the IM and the Handbook pertain to oil and gas leasing decisions, the BLM determined that the MLP concepts are also applicable to potash leasing decisions. Therefore, the MLP process provides additional planning and analysis for areas prior to new leasing of oil and gas and potash. The MLP/Draft RMP Amendments/Draft EIS analyzes likely mineral development scenarios and land use plan alternatives with varying mitigation levels for leasing.

    The MLP/Draft RMP Amendments/Draft EIS includes a range of management alternatives designed to address management challenges and issues raised during scoping concerning mineral leasing decisions. The four alternatives are:

    (1) Alternative A is the No Action alternative and represents the continuation of existing mineral leasing management (oil, gas, and potash). Alternative A allows for oil, gas, and potash leasing and development to occur on the same tracts of land where it is consistent with current leasing decisions.

    (2) Alternative B provides for mineral leasing and development outside of areas that are protected for high scenic quality (including public lands visible from Arches and Canyonlands National Parks), high use recreation areas, and other sensitive resources with stipulations that minimize surface disturbance and associated potential resource impacts. Mineral leasing decisions are divided into two options specified as Alternative B1 and Alternative B2. In Alternative B1, surface impacts would be minimized by separating new leasing of the two commodities (oil/gas and potash), limiting the density of mineral development, and locating potash processing facilities in areas identified with the least amount of sensitive resources. Potash leasing would involve a phased approach and would be prioritized within identified areas. Alternative B2 provides for only oil and gas leasing; no new potash leasing would occur. Alternative B2 would also minimize surface impacts by limiting the density of oil and gas development.

    (3) Alternative C provides for only oil and gas leasing; no potash leasing would occur. This alternative affords the greatest protection to areas with high scenic quality, recreational uses, special designations, BLM lands adjacent to Arches and Canyonlands National Parks, and other sensitive resources.

    (4) Alternative D is the BLM's preferred alternative and provides for both oil leasing and potash leasing. Mineral development would be precluded in many areas with high scenic quality, in some high use recreation areas, specifically designated areas, and in other areas with sensitive resources. Outside of these areas, surface impacts would be minimized by separating leasing of the two commodities (oil/gas and potash), locating potash processing facilities in areas with the least amount of sensitive resources, and limiting the density of mineral development. Potash leasing would involve a phased approach and would be prioritized within identified areas. Alternative D provides operational flexibility from mineral leasing and development through some specific exceptions and closes BLM lands adjacent to Arches and Canyonlands National Parks to mineral leasing and development.

    The preferred alternative has been identified as described in 40 CFR 1502.14(e). However, identification of a preferred alternative does not represent the final agency decision. The MLP/Proposed RMP Amendments/Final EIS will reflect changes or adjustments based on information received during public comment, new information, or changes in BLM policies or priorities. The MLP/Proposed RMP Amendments/Final EIS may include portions of any analyzed alternatives. For this reason, the BLM encourages comments on all alternatives and management actions described in the MLP/Draft RMP Amendments/Draft EIS.

    You may submit comments on the MLP/Draft RMP Amendments/Draft EIS in writing to the BLM at any public meeting, or you may submit them to the BLM using one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section above. All comments must be received by the end of the comment period. Comments submitted must include the commenter's name and street address. Whenever possible, please include reference to either the page or section in the MLP/Draft RMP Amendments/Draft EIS to which the comment applies. Please note that public comments and information submitted including names, street addresses, and email addresses of persons who submit comments will be available for public review and disclosure at the above address during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, are available for public inspection in their entirety.

    Authority:

    40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10 and 43 CFR 1610.2.

    Approved: August 17, 2015. Jenna Whitlock, Acting State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20784 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-NER-BOHA-19019; PPMPSPD1Z.YM0000; PPNEBOHAS1] Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area Advisory Council AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Annual Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the annual meeting of the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area Advisory Council (Council). The agenda includes results of the Council survey, planning for the 20th anniversary of the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area, the National Park Service (NPS) Centennial, and the Boston Light Tricentennial in 2016, and membership of and planning for the next steps for the Council. Superintendent Giles Parker will also give updates about park operations and planning efforts.

    DATES:

    September 9, 2015, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. (Eastern).

    ADDRESSES:

    WilmerHale, 60 State Street, 26th Floor, Conference Room, Boston, MA 02109.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Giles Parker, Superintendent and Designated Federal Official (DFO), Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area, 15 State Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02109, telephone (617) 223-8669, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is open to the public. Those wishing to submit written comments may contact the DFO for the Council, Giles Parker, by mail at National Park Service, Boston Harbor Islands, 15 State Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02109 or via email [email protected] Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    The Council was appointed by the Director of the National Park Service pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 460kkk(g). The purpose of the Council is to advise and make recommendations to the Boston Harbor Islands Partnership with respect to the implementation of a management plan and park operations. Efforts have been made locally to ensure that the interested public is aware of the meeting dates.

    Dated: August 8, 2015. Shirley Sears, Acting Chief, Office of Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20782 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-NRSS-EQD-SSB-19096; PPWONRADI1, PPMRSNR1Y.AM0000 (155)] Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; Use of iNaturalist by the National Park Service To Record Natural History Observations AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (National Park Service, NPS) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

    DATES:

    You must submit comments on or before September 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or [email protected] (email) and identify your submission as 1024-iNAT. Please send a copy of your comments to Phadrea Ponds, Information Collection Coordinator, National Park Service, 1201 Oakridge Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525 (mail); or [email protected] (email). Please reference Information Collection 1024-iNAT in the subject line.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Simon Kingston, National Park Service, Inventory and Monitoring Division, 1201 Oakridge Dr., Suite 100, Fort Collins, CO 80525; [email protected]; or 970-225-3551. You may review the ICR online at http://www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review Department of the Interior collections under review by OMB.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    The National Park Service (NPS) is requesting approval for a new collection of information in which scientists and members of the public will use iNaturalist to record natural history observations during NPS Bioblitz and other citizen science sponsored events. The NPS is requesting to use iNaturalist—a web-based tool program that will allow park visitors to record the natural history of wildlife, plant and other species observed inside NPS Park units and managed lands. These recorded observations will be used to supply NPSpecies biodiversity database with additional information not currently known about species in the parks. The participation of citizen scientists via iNaturalist provides immediate on-site input that is often not available with the current level of NPS staffing.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1024-New.

    Title: Use of iNaturalist by the National Park Service To Record Natural History Observations.

    Type of Request: New Collection.

    Description of Respondents: General public and non-federal scientists.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Frequency of Collection: One-time, on-occasion.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses: 61,250.

    Estimated Completion Time per Response: 5 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,104.

    Estimated Annual Non-hour Burden Cost: None.

    III. Comments

    A Notice was published in the Federal Register (Vol. 80, No. 68, p. 19092) on April 9, 2015 stating that we intended to request OMB approval of our information collection associated with the iNaturalist project. In this notice, we solicited public comment for 60 days ending June 8, 2015. We did not receive any comments as a result of the Federal Register Notice.

    We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:

    • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us or OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.

    Dated: August 17, 2015. Madonna L. Baucum, Information Collection Clearance Officer, National Park Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20677 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EH-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-149 (Fourth Review)] Barium Chloride From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year Review AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on barium chloride from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 4, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy Sherman (202-205-3289), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this review may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background.—On August 4, 2015, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (80 FR 24973, May 1, 2015) of the subject five-year review was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)).

    1 A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.

    For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

    Staff report.—A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the review will be placed in the nonpublic record on September 18, 2015, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for this review. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission's rules.

    Written submissions.—As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the review and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution,2 and any party other than an interested party to the review may file written comments with the Secretary on what determination the Commission should reach in the review. Comments are due on or before September 23, 2015 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year review nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the review by September 23, 2015. However, should the Department of Commerce extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its review, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce's final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce's results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. Please be aware that the Commission's rules with respect to filing have changed. The most recent amendments took effect on July 25, 2014. See 79 FR 35920 (June 25, 2014), and the revised Commission Handbook on E-filing, available from the Commission's Web site at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    2 The Commission has found the response submitted by Chemical Products Corporation to be individually adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)).

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    Determination.—The Commission has determined this review is extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B).

    Authority:

    This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

    Issued: August 18, 2015.

    By order of the Commission.

    Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20689 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-963] Certain Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on July 7, 2015, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of AliphCom d/b/a Jawbone of San Francisco, California and BodyMedia, Inc. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A supplement was filed on July 24, 2015. The complaint as supplemented alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain activity tracking devices, systems, and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,073,707 (“the '707 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,398,546 (“the '546 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,446,275 (“the '275 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,529,811 (“the '811 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,793,522 (“the '522 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 8,961,413 (“the '413 patent”), and that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complaint further alleges misappropriation of trade secrets, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States.

    The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

    ADDRESSES:

    The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.

    Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2015).

    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on August 17, 2015, ordered that

    (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine:

    (a) Whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain activity tracking devices, systems, and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 19, 23, and 24 of the '707 patent; claims 1-18 and 20-28 of the '546 patent; claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 13-15, 18, and 19 of the '275 patent; claims 1, 5-7, 16, and 17 of the '811 patent; claim 2 of the '522 patent; and claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, and 12 of the '413 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (b) whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(A) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain activity tracking devices, systems, and components thereof by reason of misappropriation of trade secrets, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States;

    (2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

    (a) The complainants are:

    AliphCom d/b/a Jawbone, 99 Rhode Island Street, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103.

    BodyMedia, Inc., Union Trust Building, 501 Grant Street, Suite 1075, Pittsburgh, PA 15219.

    (b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:

    Fitbit, Inc., 405 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

    Flextronics International Ltd., 6201 America Center Drive, San Jose, CA 95002.

    Flextronics Sales & Marketing (A-P) Ltd., Suite 802, St. James Court, St. Denis Street, Port Louis, Mauritius.

    (c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

    (3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

    Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

    Issued: August 18, 2015.

    By order of the Commission.

    Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20730 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1122-0028] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    60-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 20, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Semi-annual Progress Report for Children and Youth Exposed to Violence Program.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: 1122-0028. U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: The affected public includes the approximately 25 grantees under the Consolidated Grant Program to Address Children and Youth Experiencing Domestic and Sexual Assault and Engage Men and Boys as Allies (hereafter referred to as the Consolidated Youth Program) enacted in the FY 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 appropriation acts, which consolidated four previously authorized and appropriated programs into one comprehensive program. The four programs included in the FY 2012, FY 2013, FY 2014, and FY 2015 consolidations were: Services to Advocate for and Respond to Youth (Youth Services), Grants to Assist Children and Youth Exposed to Violence (CEV), Engaging Men and Youth in Preventing Domestic Violence (EMY), and Supporting Teens through Education and Prevention (STEP).

    The Consolidated Youth Program supports projects designed to provide coordinated community responses that support child, youth and young adult victims through direct services, training, coordination and collaboration, effective intervention, treatment, response, and prevention strategies. The Consolidated Youth Program creates a unique opportunity for communities to increase collaboration among non-profit victim service providers; violence prevention, and children (0-10), youth (11-18), young adult (19-24) and men-serving organizations; tribes and tribal governments; local government agencies; schools; and programs that support men's role in combating sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is estimated that it will take the approximately 25 respondents (grantees from the Consolidated Youth Program) approximately one hour to complete a semi-annual progress report. The semi-annual progress report is divided into sections that pertain to the different types of activities in which grantees may engage. A Consolidated Youth Program grantee will only be required to complete the sections of the form that pertain to its own specific activities.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total annual hour burden to complete the data collection forms is 50 hours, that is 25 grantees completing a form twice a year with an estimated completion time for the form being one hour.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: August 18, 2015. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20700 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1105-0096] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection Sequestered Juror Information Form AGENCY:

    U.S. Marshals Service, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    60-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), U.S. Marshals Service, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 20, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Nicole Feuerstein, Publications Specialist, U.S. Marshals Service, CS-3, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20530-0001 (phone: 202-307-5168).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the U.S. Marshals Service, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection: Extension with change of a currently approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Sequestered Juror Information Form.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: The form number is USM-523A. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS).

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Households/Individuals. Form USM-523A Sequestered Juror Information Form. The authority for collecting the information on this form is 28 U.S.C. 509, 510 and 561 et seq. The United States Marshals Service is responsible for ensuring the security of federal courthouses, courtrooms, and federal jurist. This information assists Marshals Service personnel in the planning of, and response to, potential security needs of the court and jurors during the course of proceedings.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 14 respondents will complete a 4 minute form. The following factors were considered when creating the burden estimate: the average number of people on a jury and the average number of sequestered juries held per year (estimated at one; many years go without one).

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated public burden associated with this collection is 1 hour. It is estimated that respondents will take 4 minutes to complete Form USM-523A. The burden hours for collecting respondent data sum to 1 hour (14 respondents × 4 minutes = 56 minutes or 1 hour).

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: August 17, 2015. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20647 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1122-0001] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection: Certification of Compliance With the Statutory Eligibility Requirements of the Violence Against Women Act as Amended AGENCY:

    Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    60-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 20, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Certification of Compliance with the Statutory Eligibility Requirements of the Violence Against Women Act as Amended.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: 1122-0001. U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: The affected public includes STOP formula grantees (50 states, the District of Columbia and five territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands). The STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program was authorized through the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and reauthorized and amended in 2000, 2005, and 2013. The purpose of the STOP Formula Grant Program is to promote a coordinated, multi-disciplinary approach to improving the criminal justice system's response to violence against women. It envisions a partnership among law enforcement, prosecution, courts, and victim advocacy organizations to enhance victim safety and hold offenders accountable for their crimes of violence against women. The Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) administers the STOP Formula Grant Program funds which must be distributed by STOP state administrators according to statutory formula (as amended in 2000, 2005 and 2013).

    (4) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: It is estimated that it will take the approximately 56 respondents (state administrators from the STOP Formula Grant Program) less than one hour to complete a Certification of Compliance with the Statutory Eligibility Requirements of the Violence Against Women Act, as Amended.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total annual hour burden to complete the Certification is less than 56 hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: August 18, 2015. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20699 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act

    On August 17, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the lawsuit entitled United States of America and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection v. Delaware County Regional Water Quality Control Authority (DELCORA), Civil Action No. 15-4652.

    This action addresses the combined sewer system in the City of Chester, and throughout Delaware County, PA. The lawsuit seeks civil penalties and injunctive relief pursuant to sections 309(b) and (d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319 (b) and (d), for violations including failure to develop a Long Term Control Plan (LTCP), unpermitted sewage discharges, and effluent limit exceedances. The proposed Consent Decree requires DELCORA to develop and implement an LTCP and a Nine Minimum Controls plan to control combined sewer overflows and bring its combined sewer system into good operation and maintenance, and to pay a civil penalty of $1,375,000. The proposed Consent Decree also resolves concurrent claims under the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law alleged in the Joint Complaint by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

    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 and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection v. Delaware County Regional Water Quality Control Authority (DELCORA), D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-1-1-10972. 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.

    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 $16.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.

    Robert Brook, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20620 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2015-0046] Information Collection: Billing Instructions for NRC Cost-Reimbursement Type Contracts AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “Billing Instructions for NRC Cost Type Contracts.”

    DATES:

    Submit comments by September 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Vlad Dorjets, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0109), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202-395-7315, email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tremaine Donnell, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6258; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0046 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-2015-0046. A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by accessing Docket ID NRC-2015-0046 on this Web site.

    • 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] A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by accessing ADAMS Accession No. ML15208A504. The supporting statement is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15208A514.

    • 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.

    • NRC's Clearance Officer: A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by contacting the NRC's Clearance Officer, Tremaine Donnell, Office of Information Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6258; email: [email protected]

    B. Submitting Comments

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at http://www.regulations.gov and entered into ADAMS. Comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, 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 comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

    II. Background

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “Billing Instructions for NRC Cost Type Contracts.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    The NRC published a Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period on this information collection on March 18, 2015 (80 FR 14172).

    1. The title of the information collection: “Billing Instructions for NRC Cost Type Contracts.”

    2. OMB approval number: 3150-0109.

    3. Type of submission: Extension.

    4. The form number if applicable: None.

    5. How often the collection is required or requested: Monthly and on occasion.

    6. Who will be required or asked to respond: NRC Contractors.

    7. The estimated number of annual responses: 1,506.

    8. The estimated number of annual respondents: 41.

    9. An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 752.

    10. Abstract: In administering its contracts, the NRC provides billing instructions for its contractors to follow in preparing invoices. These instructions stipulate the level of detail in which supporting data must be submitted for NRC review. The review of this information ensures that all payments made by the NRC for valid and reasonable costs are in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of August, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Tremaine Donnell, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20666 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 040-09068; NRC-2008-0391] Lost Creek ISR, LLC; Correction AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Temporary Exemption; issuance; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is correcting a notice that was published in the Federal Register on July 24, 2015, that gave notice to the public that it is considering issuance of a temporary exemption from certain NRC financial assurance requirements to Lost Creek ISR, LLC, for its Lost Creek In Situ Recovery (ISSR) Project in Crook County, Wyoming. This action is being taken to correct the date that the exemption expires.

    DATES:

    This correction is effective on August 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0391 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0391. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

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

    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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Saxton, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0697; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Federal Register of July 24, 2015 (80 FR 44158), on page 44160, first column, the Conclusions Section, the third sentence is corrected to read as follows: “This exemption will expire on February 10, 2017, for the Lost Creek ISR Project.”

    Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of August, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Andrew Persinko, Deputy Director, Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20719 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 63-001-HLW; NRC-2015-0051] Department of Energy; Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Draft supplement to environmental impact statements; availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment the draft “Supplement to the U.S. Department of Energy's Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada,” NUREG-2184. This supplements the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) 2002 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and its 2008 Supplemental EIS for the proposed repository in accordance with the findings and scope outlined in the NRC staff's 2008 Adoption Determination Report (ADR) for DOE's EISs. The scope of this supplement is limited to the potential environmental impacts from the proposed repository on groundwater and from surface discharges of groundwater. The NRC staff plans to hold four public meetings during the public comment period to present an overview of the supplement and to accept public comments on the draft supplement.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on the supplement by October 20, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0051. 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:

    Christine Pineda, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6789; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0051 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-2015-0051.

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

    • NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0051 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 into ADAMS.

    II. Discussion

    This supplement evaluates the potential environmental impacts on groundwater and impacts associated with the discharge of any contaminated groundwater to the ground surface due to potential releases from a geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. This supplements DOE's 2002 “Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada” and 2008 “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada,” in accordance with the findings and scope outlined in the NRC staff's 2008 “Adoption Determination Report for the U.S. Department of Energy's Environmental Impact Statements for the Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain.” The ADR provides the NRC staff's conclusion as to whether it is practicable for the NRC to adopt DOE's EISs under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended. The NRC's decision on adoption of the EISs will occur after completion of the adjudication under part 2, subpart J of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR).

    The scope of this supplement is limited to those areas defined in the ADR, specifically, the potential environmental impacts from the proposed repository on groundwater and from surface discharges of groundwater. In the ADR, the NRC staff found that the analysis in DOE's EISs does not provide adequate discussion of the cumulative amounts of radiological and nonradiological contaminants that may enter the groundwater over time and how these contaminants would behave in the aquifer and surrounding environments. This supplement provides the information the NRC staff identified in its ADR as necessary. The supplement describes the affected environment with respect to the groundwater flow path for potential contaminant releases from the repository that could be transported beyond the regulatory compliance location through the alluvial aquifer in Fortymile Wash and the Amargosa Desert, and to the Furnace Creek/Middle Basin area of Death Valley. The analysis in this supplement considers both radiological and nonradiological contaminants. Using groundwater modeling, the NRC staff finds that contaminants from the repository would be captured by groundwater withdrawal along the flow path, such as the current pumping in the Amargosa Farms area, or would continue to Death Valley in the absence of such pumping. Therefore, this supplement provides a description of the flow path from the regulatory compliance location to Death Valley, the locations of current groundwater withdrawal, and locations of potential natural discharge along the groundwater flow path. The supplement evaluates the potential radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts at these groundwater and surface discharge locations over a one-million year period following repository closure, including potential impacts on the aquifer environment, soils, ecology, and public health, as well as the potential for disproportionate impacts on minority or low-income populations. In addition, this supplement assesses the potential for cumulative impacts that may be associated with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. The NRC staff finds that all of the impacts on the resources evaluated in this supplement would be SMALL.

    III. Availability of Documents

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

    Document Adams accession No. NRC Staff's Draft “Supplement to the U.S. Department of Energy's Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada,” NUREG-2184 ML15223B243 NRC Staff's Adoption Determination Report ML082420342 NRC Federal Register notice of intent to prepare a supplement to a final supplemental environmental impact statement ML15058A595 DOE “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada” ML081750191 DOE “Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada” ML032690321 IV. Public Meetings

    The NRC staff will hold a public conference call on August 26, 2015, from 2:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time. During this call, the NRC staff will provide information on how to submit comments on the draft supplement and answer any questions related to the public comment process. The staff will not be accepting comments on the draft supplement during this call. The teleconference number and passcode for this call will be made available on the NRC's public Web site, or you may call 301-415-6789 or email [email protected].

    In addition, the NRC staff plans to hold the following public meetings during the public comment period to present an overview of the supplement and to accept public comments on the document.

    • September 3, 2015: NRC Headquarters, One White Flint North, First Floor Commission Hearing Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Maryland 20852. This meeting will start at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time and continue until 5:00 p.m.

    • September 15, 2015: Embassy Suites Convention Center, 3600 Paradise Rd., Las Vegas, Nevada 89169. This meeting will start at 7:00 p.m. Pacific Time and continue until 9:00 p.m.

    • September 17, 2015: Amargosa Community Center, 821 E. Amargosa Farm Road, Amargosa Valley, Nevada 89020. This meeting will start at 7:00 p.m. Pacific Time and continue until 9:00 p.m.

    • October 15, 2015: Public meeting via conference call, from 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time until 4:00 p.m.

    Additionally, at each of the meeting locations in Nevada, the NRC staff will host informal discussions during an open house for one hour prior to the meeting start time. Open houses will begin at 6:00 p.m. Pacific Time.

    The public meetings will be transcribed and will include: (1) A presentation of the contents of the draft supplement; and (2) the opportunity for interested government agencies, organizations, and individuals to provide comments on the draft supplement. No oral comments will be accepted during the open house sessions prior to the public meetings in Nevada. To be considered, oral comments must be presented during the transcribed portion of the public meeting. Written comments can be submitted to the NRC staff at any time during the public meetings. Persons interested in attending or presenting oral comments at any of the public meetings are encouraged to pre-register. Persons may pre-register to attend or present oral comments by calling 301-415-6789 or by emailing [email protected] no later than 3 days prior to the meeting. To provide oral comments, members of the public may also register in person at each meeting. Individual oral comments may be limited by the time available, depending on the number of persons who register. If special equipment or accommodations are needed to attend or present information at a public meeting, the need should be brought to the NRC's attention no later than 10 days prior to the meeting to provide the NRC staff adequate notice to determine whether the request can be accommodated. To maximize public participation, the NRC headquarters meeting on September 3, 2015, will be Web-streamed via the NRC's public Web site. On the meeting date, interested persons should go to the NRC's Live Meeting Webcast page to participate: http://video.nrc.gov/. The NRC headquarters meeting will also feature a moderated teleconference line so remote attendees will have the opportunity to present oral comments. To receive the teleconference number and passcode for the September 3 meeting or for the October 6 conference call, call 301-415-6789 or email [email protected]. Meeting agendas and participation details will be available on the NRC's Public Meeting Schedule Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/publicinvolve/public-meetings/index.cfm no later than 10 days prior to the meetings.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of August 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    James Rubenstone, Acting Director, Yucca Mountain Directorate, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20638 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2015-0032] Information Collection: Requests to Agreement States for Information AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “Requests to Agreement States for Information.”

    DATES:

    Submit comments by September 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Vlad Dorjets, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0029) NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202-395-7315, email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tremaine Donnell, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6258; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0032 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-2015-0032.

    • 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 supporting statement is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML151979A054.

    • 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.

    • NRC's Clearance Officer: A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by contacting the NRC's Clearance Officer, Tremaine Donnell, Office of Information Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6258; email: [email protected]

    B. Submitting Comments

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at http://www.regulations.gov and entered into ADAMS. Comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, 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 comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

    II. Background

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “Requests to Agreement States for Information.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    The NRC published a Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period on this information collection on April 27, 2015 (80 FR 23306).

    1. The title of the information collection: Requests to Agreement States for Information.

    2. OMB approval number: 3150-0029.

    3. Type of submission: Revision.

    4. The form number if applicable: Not applicable.

    5. How often the collection is required or requested: On occasion.

    6. Who will be required or asked to respond: Thirty-Seven Agreement States who have signed Section 274(b) Agreements with the NRC.

    7. The estimated number of annual responses: 421.8 responses.

    8. The estimated number of annual respondents: 37.

    9. An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 3,374.4 hours.

    10. Abstract: The NRC is seeking to revise this information collection to be a plan for a generic collection of information. The need and practicality of the collection can be evaluated, but the details of the specific individual collections will not be known until a later time. The Agreement States will be asked on a one-time or as-needed basis to respond to a specific incident, to gather information on licensing and inspection practices or other technical information. The results of such information requests, which are authorized under Section 274(b) of the Atomic Energy Act, will be utilized in part by the NRC in preparing responses to Congressional inquiries.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of August 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Tremaine Donnell, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20665 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [FEMA-2012-0026, NRC-2015-0133] Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Draft NUREG; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 29, 2015, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued and requested comments on draft NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 2, “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants.” The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on August 27, 2015. The NRC has decided to extend the public comment period to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments.

    DATES:

    The due date for comments on the document published on May 29, 2015 (80 FR 30739) is extended. Comments should be filed no later than October 13, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    In order to avoid the receipt and review of duplicate submissions, please submit your comments and any supporting material by only one of the following means:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID FEMA-2012-0026. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Mail comments to: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100.

    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:

    Don Tailleart, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-287-9257; email: [email protected] or William Eberst, Technological Hazards Division, National Preparedness Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472-3100; telephone: 202-341-4917; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID FEMA-2012-0026 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 FEMA-2012-0026.

    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 draft guidance document is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14246A519.

    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.

    Submitted comments may also be inspected at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Office of Chief Counsel, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID FEMA-2012-0026 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that FEMA is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.

    All submissions received must include the agency name (FEMA) and docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, FEMA will post all submissions, without change, to www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information that you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act notice, which can be viewed by clicking on the “Privacy Notice” link on the homepage of www.regulations.gov.

    II. Discussion

    On May 29, 2015, the NRC requested comments on draft NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 2, “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants.” Comments on the draft document were also requested by FEMA on the same date (80 FR 30697). The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on August 27, 2015. On June 23, 2015, the Nuclear Energy Institute submitted a request to the NRC and FEMA to extend the public comment period an additional 90 days (ADAMS Accession No. ML15205A187). The NRC, in conjunction with FEMA, has decided to extend the public comment period on this document until October 13, 2015, to allow more time for members of the public to submit their comments. This represents a 45-day extension, rather than 90 days as requested, in consideration of the extensive public outreach and stakeholder engagement throughout the development of the draft document, which provided opportunities for reviewing and providing feedback on preliminary versions of the document. A 45-day extension should provide sufficient additional time for comments to be provided.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of August, 2015.

    For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Brian E. Holian, Director, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20637 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. R2015-6; Order No. 2669] 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 China Post Group. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: September 17, 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 IV. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction

    On August 14, 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 the inbound portion of a Multi-Product Bilateral Agreement with China Post Group (Agreement).2 In accordance with Order No. 2148,3 the Postal Service claims the Agreement is functionally equivalent to the agreement with China Post filed in Docket No. R2010-6 (China Post 2010 Agreement), with inbound small packets with delivery scanning pricing similar to that in the China Post 2010, China Post 2011, China Post 2013, and China Post 2014 agreements. Id. at 1, 4. The Postal Service seeks to include the Agreement 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. Id. at 1.

    1 Notice of United States Postal Service of Type 2 Rate Adjustment, and Notice of Filing Functionally Equivalent Agreement, August 14, 2015, at 1 (Notice).

    2 Notice at 1. The Agreement's inbound competitive rates will be filed with the Commission in a separate docket. Id. at 3.

    3See Docket No. R2013-9, Order Granting, in Part, Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Order No. 1864 and Modifying, in Part, Order No. 1864, August 11, 2014 (Order No. 2148).

    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. Id. at 2. Attachment 1 is an application for non-public treatment of material filed under seal with the Commission. Id. 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.

    The Postal Service states that the intended effective date of the Agreement's inbound market dominant rates is October 1, 2015; 4 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 China Post Group, the postal operator for China. Id. at 3.

    4 Although the copy of the Agreement filed under seal has yet to be signed by both parties, the Postal Service anticipates updating this docket with a signed version, soon. Id. at 3 n.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 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.5

    5Id. at 7, 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. Notice at 7. 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 China Post Group in terms of their ability to tender small packet with delivery scanning flows from China or serve as a designated operator for letter post originating in China. 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. R2010-6.6 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 11.

    6Id. at 8-9; 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. R2015-6 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 17, 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. R2015-6 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 17, 2015.

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

    By the Commission.

    Shoshana M. Grove, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20648 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. CP2015-127; Order No. 2667] New Postal Product AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning an additional 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 24, 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 14, 2015, the Postal Service filed notice that it has entered into an additional Global Reseller Expedited Package Contracts 2 (GREP 2) negotiated service agreement (Agreement).1

    1 Notice of United States Postal Service of Filing a Functionally Equivalent Global Reseller Expedited Package 2 Negotiated Service Agreement, August 14, 2015 (Notice).

    To support its Notice, the Postal Service filed a copy of the Agreement, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.

    II. Notice of Commission Action

    The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2015-127 for consideration of matters raised by the Notice.

    The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filing is consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than August 24, 2015. The public portions of the filing can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov).

    The Commission appoints John P. Klingenberg to serve as Public Representative in this docket.

    III. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:

    1. The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2015-127 for consideration of the matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.

    2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, John P. Klingenberg is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding (Public Representative).

    3. Comments are due no later than August 24, 2015.

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

    By the Commission.

    Shoshana M. Grove, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20634 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. MC2015-79 and CP2015-126; Order No. 2668] New Postal Product AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the addition of Priority Mail Contract 140 negotiated service agreement to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: August 24, 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

    In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq., the Postal Service filed a formal request and associated supporting information to add Priority Mail Contract 140 to the competitive product list.1

    1 Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 140 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data, August 14, 2015 (Request).

    The Postal Service contemporaneously filed a redacted contract related to the proposed new product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5. Id. Attachment B.

    To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the contract, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, proposed changes to the Mail Classification Schedule, a Statement of Supporting Justification, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.

    II. Notice of Commission Action

    The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2015-79 and CP2015-126 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed Priority Mail Contract 140 product and the related contract, respectively.

    The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned dockets are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than August 24, 2015. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov).

    The Commission appoints Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya to serve as Public Representative in these dockets.

    III. Ordering Paragraphs

    It is ordered:

    1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. MC2015-79 and CP2015-126 to consider the matters raised in each docket.

    2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings (Public Representative).

    3. Comments are due no later than August 24, 2015.

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

    By the Commission.

    Shoshana M. Grove, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20635 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, Washington, DC 20549-2736. Extension: Form 12b-25; OMB Control No. 3235-0058, SEC File No. 270-71.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.

    The purpose of Form 12b-25 (17 CFR 240.12b-25) is to provide notice to the Commission and the marketplace that a registrant will be unable to timely file a required periodic or transition report pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) or the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a et seq.). If all the filing conditions of the form are satisfied, the registrant is granted an automatic filing extension. The information required is filed on occasion and is mandatory. All information is available to the public for review. Approximately 4,456 registrants file Form 12b-25 and it takes approximately 2.5 hours per response for a total of 11,140 burden hours.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.

    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; and an email to [email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to: [email protected] Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: August 17, 2015. Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20658 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-75712; File No. SR-EDGA-2015-31] Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 13.8 To Describe the Market Data Product EDGA Book Viewer August 17, 2015.

    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on August 7, 2015, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,4 which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 13.8 to describe a market data product known as EDGA Book Viewer.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at www.batstrading.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 parts of such statements.

    (A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to add language to Rule 13.8 describing a market data product known as EDGA Book Viewer. The proposal memorializes in the Exchange's rules a data feed that is currently available through the Exchange's public Web site free of charge. EDGA Book Viewer is a data feed that disseminates, on a real-time basis, the aggregated two-side quotations for up to five (5) price levels for all displayed orders for securities traded on the Exchange and for which the Exchanges reports quotes under the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) Plan or the Nasdaq/UTP Plan. EDGA Book Viewer also contains the last ten (10) trades including time of trade, price and share quantity. EDGA Book Viewer is currently available via www.batstrading.com without charge. The Exchange will file a separate proposed rule change with the Commission proposing fees to be charged for certain types of access to EDGA Book Viewer as of September 1, 2015.5

    5 The Exchange understands that its affiliated exchanges intend to file identical proposed rule changes to adopt rules and fees for the Book Viewer data feed with the Commission. The Exchange's affiliates are EDGX Exchange, Inc., BATS Exchange, Inc. and BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,6 in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act,7 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and to protect investors and the public interest, and that it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or dealers. This proposal is in keeping with those principles in that it promotes increased transparency through the dissemination of EDGA Book Viewer. The Exchange also believes this proposal is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it protects investors and the public interest and promotes just and equitable principles of trade by providing investors with an alternative for receiving market data as requested by market data vendors and purchasers that expressed an interest in exchange-only data for instances where consolidated data is no longer required to be purchased and displayed. The proposed rule change would benefit investors by facilitating their prompt access to real-time depth-of-book information contained in EDGA Book Viewer. The proposed rule change also removes impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by memorializing in the Exchange's rules a data feed that is currently available through the Exchange's public Web site free of charge.

    6 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 11(A) of the Act 8 in that it supports (i) fair competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange markets, and between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets and (ii) the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities. Furthermore, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 603 of Regulation NMS,9 which provides that any national securities exchange that distributes information with respect to quotations for or transactions in an NMS stock do so on terms that are not unreasonably discriminatory. EDGA Book Viewer is accessed and subscribed to on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make this data available. Accordingly, distributors and subscribers can discontinue use at any time and for any reason.

    8 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.

    9See 17 CFR 242.603.

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to consumers of such data. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to users and consumers of such data and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that the data products proposed herein are precisely the sort of market data products that the Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS. The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS—by lessening regulation of the market in proprietary data—would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal analysis of the need for such data.10

    10See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04).

    By removing “unnecessary regulatory restrictions” on the ability of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history.

    In addition, EDGA Book Viewer removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because EDGA Book Viewer provides investors with alternative market data and competes with similar market data product currently offered by the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE”) and the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”).11 The provision of new options for investors to receive market data was a primary goal of the market data amendments adopted by Regulation NMS.12 EDGA Book Viewer is precisely the sort of market data product that the Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS.

    11See<